The Devil is in the Details (uranium mining in VA)

The shock has nearly worn off. The news I didn’t want to hear. I’ve followed the human health and environmental devastation caused by uranium mining on tribal lands for a few decades. I’ve written letters to the editor against nuclear power because there is no safe way to store the radioactive waste left behind, toxic for many 1,000’s of years.

And now it’s coming to our backyard, in beautiful lush green Virginia. Last weekend I heard a Navajo man named Robert Tohe speak on the legacy of degradation from uranium mining out west. He said: “There’s really no place to hold this kind of waste, so why would you generate more if there is no place to store it? Is it need or greed?”

Last year I covered a story on a citizen’s group focused on the protection our water.

Uranium mining is like selling it to the devil. There’s never been uranium mining east of the Mississippi for a reason. Virginia’s climate is wet. Its land is rich with waterways. Contamination travels through the air and through water.

Isn’t it ironic that the indigenous people of the southwest have sacrificed their lives and land to uranium mining and so many of their communities don’t even have electricity?

When I say sacrifice I mean it literally. In the 1970’s the National Academy of Sciences coined the term “national sacrifice area” for the four corners area (Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado) of the southwest.

The price of uranium is up right now. Will we be fighting someday against a country or a terrorist group using nuclear weapons made with our own uranium, like Saddam used weapons against the U.S. that the U.S. sold to him?

Jobs? What about the jobs lost? As Pittsylvania County organizer Deborah Lovelace said, “Who’s going to want to buy beef from us?” She and her husband, whose family has been farming for 9 generations, live about 5 miles away from the first proposed mining site.

It was a good turnout Tuesday night at the library for the first organizational meeting of Floyd Countains intent on keeping Virginia’s 29 year uranium mining moratorium in place. From what I could tell none of the 40 or so people in attendance had to be convinced that the risks of mining radioactive uranium outweigh the benefits.

The meeting was a follow-up to last month’s presentation in Floyd by a group from Pittsylvania County (about 75 miles south of Floyd) where investors, partnered with a Canadian backed company, are making plans to mine a large uranium deposit, and where exploratory drilling has already taken place.

Cheri Chalfant, (our poster girl) who facilitated the meeting, said the story I wrote for the local paper (which appeared on the front page with a picture of her holding a NO Uranium Mining sign) has generated a lot of interest.

Joe Montag had just returned from a public hearing in Richmond and gave a brief report. I made a few comments about the Pittsylvania County meeting where Robert Tohe spoke.

There was some talk about the uranium mining leases that were sought in Floyd County back in the 70’s (and at least one person in the room remembered that firsthand) before everyone got down to business.

Media coverage and action events, setting up a Facebook page, hosting the Sierra Club to give an educational presentation, taking our own presentations on the road, talking to every one, bringing the issue to local churches and schools, talking to our supervisors and state representatives, creating a politician’s scorecard and a talking points brochure were all part of the brainstorming list that various people signed up for.

Time is short. Studies are due by the end of the year. A vote on whether to lift the uranium mining moratorium or not will likely be pushed through the General Assembly around the first of next year.

Read more:
http://www.looseleafnotes.com/wp/2011/02/the-devil-is-in-the-details/

The truth about uranium

Letter: Katie Whitehead
Friday, February 18, 2011

Virginia Uranium Inc. spokesman Patrick Wales, when called for a comment in “Groups: ask tough questions on uranium” (Martinsville Bulletin, published Wednesday), said: “The design criteria set forth by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for long-term tailings (waste) disposal is 1,000 years.”

This is not the whole truth.

In fact, according to a representative of the U.S. Department of Energy in a presentation to Uranium Mining in Virginia study committee of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), federal design criteria require that tailings disposal cells “must be protective for 1,000 years, or at least 200 years.” (Source: Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance of Uranium Mill Sites, Oct. 26, 2010, National Research Council Public Access Records Office. This document can be requested at http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/ManageRequest.aspx?key=49253.)

In other words, cells are required to be protective for 200 years, not necessarily 1,000. In any case, no uranium tailings cells have been tested for more than about 25 years (the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act became law in 1979); and even in this short time, there have been some problems.

Katherine Mull, executive director of the Dan River Basin Association, and Deborah Lovelace, president of League of Individuals for the Environment Inc., are right: People should be asking the hard questions about uranium mining and milling and the challenge of containing the tailings for as long as they are hazardous. And we need to ask people who will tell us the whole truth.

Four uranium study reports are under way. Preliminary results from the Virginia Beach engineering study showed that a tailings cell failure could significantly affect water quality in Kerr Reservoir and Lake Gaston; additional findings are expected this summer. The NAS report and two socioeconomic study reports are due in December 2011.

Virginia Uranium Inc. has assured investors that the company will have a bill in the Virginia Legislature to allow uranium mining in the commonwealth one month later, in January 2011. Such haste only serves corporate interest; it does not serve the public interest. Citizens deserve time to read the reports, critique and discuss them, and make sense of the implications — before anyone votes on whether to allow uranium mining and milling in Virginia.

Ask the hard questions. Ask reliable sources. And ask legislators for time to understand this important issue.

Katie Whitehead
Chatham, VA

http://www.martinsvillebulletin.com/article.cfm?ID=27379

Who will benefit from (uranium) mining?

By The Editorial Board
Published: February 22, 2011

To the editor:

I had an e-mail exchange with Whitt Clement, who is the lobbyist for Virginia Uranium Inc. I asked him, if VUI wants to mine uranium for the benefit of this country, will VUI guarantee that none of the uranium will be sold outside of this country.

To me, 35 years of digging for two years’ supply does not seem to create enough to sell to any other country. This is supposed to be for our energy needs, so they want us to believe.

The company has “Fuel for America” on its website with an American flag next to it. It also has this on its website: “Energy Independence. The United States is at a critical crossroad in its energy needs and dependence on foreign supply. Domestic energy sources have never been more important. The Coles Hill uranium deposit is believed to have the amount of raw materials needed to supply fuel for existing nuclear energy plants in the United States for a period of nearly two years.”

I asked Clement this question: “Will VUI guarantee they will not sell one ounce of uranium outside of this country if they mine in Chatham?”

His response to me was: “Being that the company is locally owned — predominantly — provides tremendous advantages to ensure that domestic sales are given first priority. I suspect, however, that even if VUI could ensure that their product was sold only to domestic sources, uranium is a global commodity and in theory could be transferred by that utility to another end user outside the U.S.”

If they are so concerned about our energy problem and, as they say, “Domestic energy sources have never been more important,” guaranteeing us they will not sell any uranium outside of this country should not be a problem.

Feels like a bait and switch. Either they are going to only use it here for our energy needs as they state or they are going to sell it to the highest bidder for their financial greed at everyone’s expense.

Either it is to help the United States’ energy problem or it is for their profit. Which is it?

BERKELEY BIDGOOD
Danville, VA

Read more:
http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2011/feb/22/who-will-benefit-mining-ar-857986/

Meeting targets 'dirty waters' in Pittsylvania County

Wednesday, February 16, 2011 8:35 AM EST

A public meeting to discuss a water quality improvement plan for five Pittsylvania County streams on the state "dirty waters" list will be held on Thursday, March 3, at 7 p.m. at Chatham Middle School.

Portions of Upper Banister and Stinking rivers and Bearskin, Cherrystone, and Whitehorn creeks are on Virginia's list of impaired or "dirty waters" because they violate the state's water quality standard for bacteria. Bacteria levels in these streams could lead to increased risk of illness for people who come in contact with streams' waters.

Bacteria sources identified include failing septic systems, direct discharges of human waste, pets, and agricultural practices in the area.

Representatives from the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and Pittsylvania Soil and Water Conservation District will be on hand to outline efforts to develop a bacteria reduction plan for the impaired streams.

Comments and questions are sought from local residents and stakeholders.

The water quality or implementation plan follows a Total Maximum Daily Load study completed in September 2007 by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.

The TMDL study identified the sources of bacteria in these impaired watersheds.

Corrective actions may include replacing failing septic systems, removing direct discharges of human waste to streams, reducing pollutant loads from agricultural, urban, and residential areas, and a pet waste disposal and education program.

Corrective actions for agricultural bacteria sources can include streamside livestock exclusion fencing, pasture management, and establishing streamside buffers on cropland, etc.

Participating in developing the implementation plan is an opportunity for local residents and stakeholders to improve and preserve water resources, increase farm production and increase property values in the community.

Strong local public participation ensures a final implementation plan driven by local input. Community involvement in the creation of the plan and support of its implementation are critical factors in determining its success in improving local water quality.

For more information on the meeting or public comment process, contact, Charlie Lunsford, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, at (804) 786-3199 or charles.lunsford@dcr.virginia.gov.

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2011/02/16/chatham/news/news49.txt

Uranium mining tailings pose significant risk

Wednesday, February 16, 2011 8:34 AM EST

In all the discussion of the protection provided the environment and human life against any pollution by uranium mining and milling, there is a most interesting statement posted on the Internet site of the Environmental Protection Agency.

And, I quote: "Because U.S. laws do not classify mine overburden as a radioactive waste, its placement in radioactive waste disposal facilities is not required. The Atomic Energy Act does not require controls on uranium mining overburden and neither the Nuclear Regulatory Commission nor the Department of Energy(DOE) regulates the disposal of conventional (open pit and underground) mining wastes."
EPA defines overburden as "soil and rock that is covering a deposit of ore, such as uranium. It usually contains at least trace amounts of the ore plus radioactive decay products." (This is also referred to as "waste rock" in other sources).

A Cameco (the largest publicly traded uranium mining company in the world, located in Canada) executive has stated in a World Nuclear Association Symposium paper that occurring with uranium ore frequently were nickel, copper, arsenic and sulphur minerals.

The sulphur minerals oxidize over time, mix with water and form sulphuric acid, which he stated dissolves the heavy metals which are also present.

Now isn't that a great mix to have leaching into the soil and creeks and rivers? And there is no regulation on the disposal of this overburden?


Remember Marline estimated about one and a half square miles of waste, which would be 100 feet high at the Coles Hill site.

Apparently that did not include the 343 additional lease documents filed in the clerk's office at Chatham by Marline on additional mining sites across Pittsylvania County.

(Not having seen the Marline document itself, I cannot swear this figure does not contain tailings volume, too.)

Yep, uranium mining in Pittsylvania County is going to be such fun, especially for the farmers with their new multi-million dollar agriculture center.

Wonder what they will do with that now?

Hildred C. Shelton

Danville, VA

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2011/02/16/chatham/opinion/opinion06.txt

Virginia Beach study provides valuable information

Wednesday, February 16, 2011 8:34 AM EST

Virginia Beach acted responsibly by engaging respected professionals to conduct a study of the potential impact that uranium mining and milling may have on water quality.

The work of Michael Baker Corp. will help the National Academy of Sciences panel fulfill its project scope.
The National Academy of Sciences will not conduct or engage in actual scientific studies that produce new data.

According to the project scope, the NAS will "examine the scientific, technical, environmental, human health and safety, and regulatory aspects of uranium mining, milling, and processing..."

The NAS relies on credible studies, such as the Virginia Beach study for its examination. It can only examine that which exists and is in its possession.

The NAS project scope can be found at http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49253


Note #9, which states it will, "identify the issues that may need to be considered regarding the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water, and the quality of soil and air from uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation. As relevant, water and waste management and severe weather effects or other stochastic events may also be considered."

The recently released Virginia Beach study supplies information vital to #9 on the NAS project scope, which will allow the NAS to better fulfill its mission.

Without this credible, scientific work and resulting document, pertinent information would not be available for the NAS to examine.

Flooding, whether considered a stochastic event or not, does occur in the Coles Hill area where uranium mining is proposed. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7mcUYAi_O4)

Those who believe that events such as this cannot occur live in, shall we say, a fantasy world.

It is also important for the NAS panel to examine results of the Danville Regional Foundation's study.

This study will be a professional, scientific assessment of the socioeconomic impacts of uranium mining and milling in our region.

The purpose of the NAS project, after examination of information, is for "assisting the commonwealth to determine whether uranium mining, milling, and processing can be undertaken in a manner that safeguards the environment, natural and historic resources, agricultural lands, and the health and well-being of its citizens."

Without pertinent, professional, scientific studies such as the Virginia Beach and Danville Regional Foundation studies, the NAS will not have the tools to adequately assist the commonwealth in any credible way.

Also, of grave concern is#7 of the project scope, which reads, " Review the state and federal regulatory framework for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation."

There is, at present, no state regulatory framework of this nature. So, how will the NAS review that which does not exist?

Several of Virginia Uranium Inc.'s lobbyists are working on "matters relating to the establishment of a regulatory program controlling development of Virginia's uranium resources," according to information found at www.vpap.org.

Are the lobbyists writing the regulations?

The citizens of Virginia did not ask for a study, nor did the General Assembly.

We should keep in mind that the Coal and Energy Commission and Virginia Uranium initiated the NAS study for a purpose.

If there is to be an NAS study, give the panel the information to conduct a comprehensive study and not just the information the mining industry and the Coal and Energy Commission want to offer.

Attempts to discredit the Virginia Beach study by the industry have been duly noted by the public.

Karen B. Maute

Danville

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2011/02/16/chatham/opinion/opinion05.txt

Richmond Virginia 02-07-2011 Speakers regarding proposed Uranium mining part 2

New Mexico Uranium Mining: Who Are The Serious Players?Friday

Comment:  If the ban is lifted in Virginia more companies will be looking here also.


February 4th, 2011 - by admin

Several uranium development companies have set their sights on New Mexico.

Two are actively involved in permitting their properties for production. One was the first to be issued a drilling permit in about a decade; another awaits a permit in order to drill the company’s property. Another is an 800-pound gorilla in the nuclear fuel cycle. Three others have properties or continue to assemble a land package in New Mexico. The following is a brief review of the projects of these uranium development or exploration companies, currently holding property or moving forward.

The front runners include Uranium Resources, Strathmore Minerals and General Atomics. Companies moving forward include Laramide Resources and Western Uranium. Companies to also watch include Energy Metals, Max Resource Corp and Powertech Uranium. Each has various plans to advance their projects and should be reviewed on their merits.

Uranium Resources Inc.

Uranium Resources is the top front runner in New Mexico. The company has devoted a great deal of time and money to permit its Church Rock property. In an interview with Craig Bartels, president of HRI (a wholly owned subsidiary of Uranium Resources), he told us, “We hope we can begin construction at the property in 2007.” The company has cleared numerous hurdles, posed by local environmentalists, having successfully won every legal battle to date. Its parent company produces about 1 million pounds annually in Texas. Earlier this year, Uranium Resources announced a proposed joint venture on the company’s Church Rock property with Japanese conglomerate, Itochu Corporation.

One HRI property, at Crownpoint, was developed by Mobil Oil as an In Situ Recovery (ISR) project. Earlier work at Crownpoint was done by Westinghouse and Conoco. Phillips developed HRI’s uranium property at Nose Rock; Kerr-McGee did the original uranium drilling at Roca Honda. Uranium Resources holds about 185,000 acres in the southern San Juan Basin of New Mexico.

Strathmore Minerals Corp

Strathmore Minerals Corp controls a number of advanced uranium properties in New Mexico. The company’s most advanced efforts have been proceeding with the permitting phase on its Church Rock property. To date, the National Instrument 43-101 resource calculations on two properties, the Church Rock and Roca Honda deposits, total nearly 50 million pounds in measured indicated, and inferred categories. Historical uranium calculations on other Strathmore properties in New Mexico, which are non-compliant by National Instrument 43-101 standards, indicate there may a similar amount in addition to what has been reported. Strathmore Minerals President and Chief Operating Officer David Miller told us via email, “It is Strathmore’s intent to become the premier uranium producer in New Mexico.” The company has approximately C million in the bank to advance its projects.

The company has followed the lead of Uranium Resources in the Church Rock area. Miller told us, “There are two ISR projects in various stages of permitting in the Church Rock area, which Strathmore started a year ago.” The company has issued news releases updating investors on its permitting progress in New Mexico. In February, the company announced it was on schedule and under budget in permitting its Church Rock uranium property. A mid-April update announced Strathmore was developing its mandatory corporate programs in the permitting process and was advancing toward the licensing phase of its In Situ Recovery process. Dependent upon when Uranium Resources receives its final approval to commence its nearby ISR project, Strathmore Minerals should quickly follow with its project. Please see final section of this article about the company’s Roca Honda project.

General Atomics

Meet the 800-pound gorilla. Not only is General Atomics in the front end of the nuclear cycle with a uranium mining subsidiary, it is a privately held company whose interests are widespread across the nuclear fuel cycle. GA is its acronym, and the one used in this industry. Founded in 1955 as a division of General Dynamics, GA has over 20 locations worldwide, manufacturing a variety of high technology products for commercial and government applications. For example, its aeronautical affiliate manufactures unmanned aircraft, surveillance and radar imaging systems.

GA covers a good part of the nuclear fuel cycle. In Australia, through Heathgate Resources, the company owns and operates the Beverly ISL mine. Its ConverDyn affiliate converts U3O8 into UF6 (uranium hexafluoride), which is the step preceding uranium enrichment. Another affiliate, the Cotter Corporation, holds various uranium properties and a licensed mill near Canon City, Colorado.

General Atomics also owns the largest uranium resource in the United States through its affiliate, Rio Grande Resources Corporation. The crown jewel of the company’s uranium holdings are found in the Mt. Taylor deposit. Before the project was placed on standby in 1989, more than 8 million pounds of U3O8 were produced.
Laramide Resources

Laramide Resources has made a strong footprint in Australia, but it also moving forward with its New Mexico uranium property. The company’s La Jara Mesa deposit is located about 12 miles outside Grants, within the San Mateo Mountains, near Mt. Taylor. Homestake had previously operated a mill in the district. Work was first commenced in the La Jara Mesa area in the 1950s. Homestake drilled 86 holes between 1967 and 1971 and abandoned the property after only a few high grade intersections. After the property changed hands in the 1970s and 1980s, a discovery hole was drilled in 1980. Power Resources (now a Cameco Corp subsidiary) drilled more than 500 holes. Homestake again re-entered the project in 1983 and completed metallurgical tests on the drill core. Homestake also completed a mining plan and feasibility study on the Dena Rich deposit, but stopped all work after the uranium price crashed.

In a conversation with Laramide Resources Chief Executive Marc Henderson, he told us, “The La Jara Mesa property may be the key piece of the puzzle,” referring to the Ambrosia Lake district. “It has the easiest production scenario and the easiest access,” Henderson said. The company’s website reports the project has a resource of approximately 7 million pounds of U308 (not compliant with National Instrument 43-101). The U.S. Forest Service is now awaiting public comments on the proposal by Laramide to drill ten test holes, about 600 feet deep, to confirm exploration findings from the 1980s.

Read more:
http://www.presenttous.com/new-mexico-uranium-mining-who-are-the-serious-players/

Uranium mining study chair reflects on review

Uranium mining study chair reflects on review

By STEVE SZKOTAK/None
Originally published February 15, 2011 at 1:30 a.m., updated February 15, 2011 at 5:37 a.m.


RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - The chairman of a panel studying uranium mining in Virginia said hours of testimony from opponents and proponents have helped committee members better understand the issues surrounding the critical environmental debate.

Paul A. Locke talked about the National Academy of Sciences study he is chairing during an interview last week, one day after about 200 people attended a meeting of the committee in a downtown hotel. An equal number showed up for a committee meeting in Danville in December.

The NAS study is assessing the statewide effect of uranium mining based on 12 lines of inquiry including mining's impact on public health and the environment and the geologic aspects of uranium deposits in Virginia.

While science is not a popularity contest, Locke said public comments are important to the committee's task.

"When we listen to scientists, we listen to how they portray facts and issues," Locke told The Associated Press. "When we listen to citizens who don't have a scientific background, it helps us understand the bigger picture."

Virginia has had a 29-year ban on uranium mining, but the biggest deposit in the United States is located in Southside Virginia and it's seen as a reliable domestic source of nuclear fuel as the nation turns increasingly to a technology that fell out of favor following Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

Virginia Uranium Inc., which estimates the ore's value at up to $10 billion, is financing the $1.4 million study. Its findings are likely to be key if the General Assembly considers lifting the moratorium.

Mining opponents fear uranium mining and milling - the separation of ore from rock - will threaten water supplies as far away as Virginia Beach, approximately 200 miles east of the deposit.

Locke is an environmental health scientist, an attorney and an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University. He has been a part of hot button NAS inquiries before, including studies on nuclear waste - "the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle," he adds.

"This is the front end of the nuclear cycle," Locke said. "This is the mining and milling."

Locke said he intends to deliver the NAS report by its scheduled December deadline, which could put the issue before the 2012 General Assembly.

"We certainly would love to see the moratorium issue resolved as quickly as possible," said Patrick Wales, project manager for Virginia Uranium.

Critics have seized on Virginia Uranium's financing of the study, contending it taints its work.

Responding to that perception, Locke stressed that all 15 members work without compensation and each is committed to providing "independent scientific advice."

"It's irrelevant to us," Locke said. "We're going to do the same project no matter where the funding comes."

For opponents like Naomi Hodge-Muse, there's no convincing her the NAS study will be unbiased.

"The National Academy of Science thing is just a rubber stamp," said Hodge-Muse, who organized a bus trip for nearly 40 residents from Henry County for last week's committee hearing. She said the opponents represented every political stripe - Republicans, Democrats and tea party members.

"Ultimately, we all breathe the same air, drink the same water," Hodge-Muse explained. "This is how democracy works. The voice of the people has to be heard."

The NAS committee has no additional public meetings planned in Virginia. It's scheduled to visit Colorado and Canada in future months to learn more about uranium mining and to hear from regulators and officials in both places.

If Virginia ends the moratorium, it would be the first East Coast state to mine the ore. Some uranium has been detected in other locations along the East Coast, but not in amounts deemed economically viable to mine.

"I think everyone is mindful that this study has important implications for the commonwealth," Locke said. "If you look at a map of the United States, you can see that those mines are in the west, and they're not in the East."

Locke said his goal is to deliver a consensus report. The academy process does not allow dissenting opinions.

"We hope that our report will be valuable for the legislators," he said. "How they make their decision, that's up to them."

Online: National Academy of Science: http://www.nationalacademies.org/
Read more:
http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2011/feb/15/bc-va-nuclear-study1st-ld-writethru/?business&business-wire

Are we willing to sell our souls?

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: February 16, 2011

To the editor:

Regarding the proposed lifting of the moratorium of uranium mining in Virginia, and the consequential mining and milling which will begin at Coles Hill: If that happens, I have to wonder.

As I follow the progression of our neighbors’ responsed to this news (Halifax, Virginia Beach, Floyd, Orange), I am humiliated. These neighbors are obviously people who are not willing to sacrifice their health — or the beauty of the birthplace of this country — to become “the energy capital of the world” and/or a “dead zone.”

Because we are locally “economically challenged” right now, are we suddenly ready to sell our souls? Short-term gain, long-term responsibility/debt/payoff, for us, as well as our friends? If the moratorium is lifted, what guarantee does Virginia Uranium Inc. give us in terms of our economy?

There are no guarantees — only risk versus loss. Will that be a Canadian company’s “bottom line” — or yours?

There are so many new opportunities arising in this area that will not be “hazardous to your health” as the tobacco label puts it (remember — that’s the one that put us all out of business in the first place). We are repeating the same mistake.

The rest of Virginia is noticing, and taking a stand — let’s not embarrass ourselves by selling out.

LINDA WORSLEY
Chatham, VA

http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2011/feb/16/are-we-willing-sell-our-souls-ar-845854/

Groups: Ask tough questions on uranium

"Patrick Wales, project manager for Virginia Uranium Inc., said in a phone interview, "The design criteria set forth by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for long-term tailings (waste) deposal is 1,000 years." He said
he doesn't know of any other engineered facility required to have a designed life span that long."

Wednesday, February 16, 2011
By PAUL COLLINS - Bulletin Staff Writer

The public needs to ask hard questions about a proposed uranium mining and milling operation in Pittsylvania County, officials with the Dan River Basin Association and League of Individuals for the Environment Inc. said Tuesday.

Katherine Mull, executive director of DRBA, and Deborah Lovelace, president of LIFE, addressed the monthly meeting of the Martinsville-Henry County Ministerial Association.

Mull encouraged the public to contact state legislators and local governing bodies to express their opinions and ask questions.

“We don’t want to be anti-mining. We want people to get as much information as they can,” she added.

“I’m not anti anything,” Lovelace said. “I’m pro keeping the ban, the moratorium (on uranium mining in Virginia) until it can be proven it can be done safely.”

Virginia has had a moratorium since 1982.

“Every single uranium mine and mill in the U.S. has generated significant pollution to the air, land and groundwater. ... Billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent to attempt to clean up” the pollution, Mull said.

Most methods for on-site storage for hazardous uranium mining and milling have been developed for arid climates in isolated areas, but Virginia has a wetter climate and is more populous, she said. According to experts, no similar project exists in the U.S., perhaps anywhere, she added.

DRBA is concerned about all phases of uranium operations: mining, milling and long-term storage of radioactive wastes and heavy metals and the impacts on surface and ground water, air and soil — but is most concerned about the long-term storage, Mull said.

It also is concerned about impacts on water quality; water quantity; drinking water supplies; flow and migration of water; and concentrations of pollutants during drought conditions, she added.

Many of concerns depend on the site, climate, ore grade, chemistry and metallurgy of ore and plant process design, Mull said. None of the studies under way about uranium mining in Virginia will answer these questions in any great detail, and none of the studies is designed to be site specific when it comes to looking at the geology and hydrology of an area to be mined, she added.

When DRBA officials met early on with Virginia Uranium officials and asked detailed questions about the mining proposal, “the refrain we got was, ‘We don’t know,’” Mull said, adding that Virginia Uranium needs a detailed mining plan.

Among other things, DRBA is concerned about the costs of monitoring, oversight and redemption and feels Virginia’s taxpayers need to be protected from bearing the costs of cleanup if a worst-case scenario occurs, she said.

“There shouldn’t be a rush” to complete the studies under way, so the General Assembly can consider lifting the ban in 2012, Mull said.

Lovelace said LIFE is a grassroots organization based in Gretna that is concerned about various environmental issues. It feels now that uranium “mining is the biggest threat to the environment,” she said.

She asked how many jobs might the region lose if some existing companies leave if uranium mining is allowed. Mull also asked whether having uranium mining might make the area less attractive to potential businesses.

After the meeting, Bishop J.C. Richardson Jr., pastor of Mt. Sinai Apostle Church, said, “We’ve got to make sure a higher percentage of the population are aware” of the potential effects of mining before “jumping on jobs, jobs, jobs” (that would be created).

The Rev. David Adkins, pastor of Starling Avenue Baptist Church, added that water systems are “our most precious resource. There are other ways of getting energy, but only one way of getting water.” He said allowing uranium mining might be like opening Pandora’s box: Once it’s opened, you can’t get it back inside.

Read more:

http://www.martinsvillebulletin.com/article.cfm?ID=27353

Richmond Virginia 02-07-2011 Speakers regarding proposed Uranium mining part 1

Va. lawmakers lavished with more than $250K in gifts

David Sherfinski
02/03/11 6:44 PM
Examiner Staff Writer

Forget campaign contributions – Virginia lawmakers received more than a quarter-million dollars in free meals, gifts, and travel last year.

The top recipient was Sen. William Wampler, R-Bristol, whose gifts totaled about $17,600, including $15,000 for a trip provided by the Southern Legislative Conference, according to the Virginia Public Access Project.

The top donor was the American Turkish Friendship Association, at $36,650, which paid for trips to Turkey for a number of legislators (some of them accompanied by spouses).

Virginia Uranium, which wants to mine the material in south central Virginia, spent $27,488 and paid for trips to France for several legislators.

Read more:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/capital-land/2011/02/lawmakers-lavished-more-250k-gifts




Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/capital-land/2011/02/lawmakers-lavished-more-250k-gifts#ixzz1Cx5xTppO

Permit for Colo. uranium mill challenged

Published: Feb. 10, 2011 at 7:39 PM

DENVER, Feb. 10 (UPI) -- Colorado environmentalists have filed a lawsuit against the state's approval of the first new uranium mill in the United States in 25 years, officials said.

The Telluride-based Sheep Mountain Alliance is challenging the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's approval of a permit for the Pinon Ridge Uranium Mill, which would be located in the high desert in the remote southwestern part of the state, the Los Angeles Times reported this week.

Energy Fuels Inc., the Canadian company that wants to open the new mill, says the processed uranium mainly would be shipped to fast-growing Asian countries.

State regulators said all appropriate procedures were followed in approving the permit, but the
lawsuit, filed Feb. 4 in state court, claims the state did not hold enough public hearings and violated a state law prohibiting uranium mills in areas with high levels of heavy metals in their water.

The suit also says the state did not require the mill's owner to set aside enough money for mitigation, noting prior groundwater contamination in Colorado mills has cost up to $500 million to clean up whereas Energy Fuels is only required to set aside $11 million.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2011/02/10/Permit-for-Colo-uranium-mill-challenged/UPI-27491297384746/#ixzz1DilrGrEL
uranium-mill-challenged/UPI-27491297384746/#ixzz1DilJGINb

NAS Meeting in Richmond, VA

NAS Uranium Meeting 5: Uranium Mining in Virginia, Denver, CO

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

RSO: Feary, David

Subject/Focus Area: Earth Sciences

Meeting: Uranium Mining in Virginia
March 23, 2011 - March 25, 2011
Denver 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:Agenda TBD

Read more:

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/meetingview.aspx?key=49253&MeetingId=4785

Life, Inc. Meeting

LIFE,Inc. Meeting

Feb 14, 2011

6 PM

Gretna Library

Hawks Circle, Gretna, VA

Appeal made at (NAS) uranium hearing in Virginia

Jack Dunavant of Halifax addresses the panel from the National Academy of Sciences on Monday in Richmond, saying he opposes uranium mining in Southside Virginia. Leader of Southside Concerned Citizens, Dunavant is a veteran uranium opponent, having battled Marline Uranium in the 1980s.

By Eva Cassada
SoVaNow.com / February 09, 2011

RICHMOND – Halifax County had no shortage of representation at the uranium meeting here Monday night even though the proposed mine is across the line in Pittsylvania County.

About 200 people, many from across Southside, attended the fourth town hall-style meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, whose scientists have been charged with studying the feasibility of lifting the 1982 uranium ban in Virginia so that a massive, $8 billion deposit in Chatham may be excavated by Virginia Uranium Inc.

Public comments largely fell into one of two categories: It’s unsafe for land and water or, in contrast, the area needs jobs and the nation needs the uranium.

Of 46 speakers, 33 were opposed to the lifting of the ban. In the course of three hours, no uranium supporter identified himself as currently living in Southside Virginia.

Keep the ban

Andrew Lester, executive director of the Roanoke River Basin Association (which formed in 1945 and helped convince the government to build Kerr Dam, he noted) said the water supply of millions of people could be affected by the proposed mine – including Virginia Beach, Tidewater’s military installations, Henderson, N.C., Roanoke Rapids, N.C., and even Raleigh, which has lately had its eye on Kerr Lake.

Even down into North Carolina, more people are getting “very, very concerned and energized,” he said.

He predicted the debate would eventually get as heated as it did over the Lake Gaston Pipeline in the 1980s and 90s.

It was that controversy, in fact, that catapulted Halifax’s State Sen. Frank Ruff into politics when Ruff, of Clarksville, was a leader in the organization.

Opponents repeatedly cited their concern that water and soil could be contaminated for thousands of years if the mine is incorrectly operated, if regulators don’t provide sufficient oversight, if catastrophic weather occurs or if, after the mine is depleted, long-term care is neglected. The Coles Hill mine would be one of only a few uranium mines in the Eastern U.S.; most North American mines are in more arid climates.

Critics say Virginia is too wet. Uranium waste products called tailings could contaminate the nearby Roanoke/Staunton River system, which includes Buggs Island Lake, they contend.

Retired environmental attorney Kay Slaughter of Charlottesville called uranium mining in a wet environment “a gigantic experiment.”

Of local speakers, Tom Brown of Halifax noted that the Navy had never had accidents with its nuclear submarines because of extensive training; however, he worried that private companies would cut corners.

Holt Evans, a Halifax Town Council member, said he’s concerned about cancer rates and health issues.

Halifax Mayor Dick Moore called mined uranium “a slow bomb.”

“I told you so,” said Jack Dunavant, a civil engineer from Halifax and leader of Southside Concerned Citizens, referring to a study released last week by Virginia Beach showing that the proposed mine – 200 miles from Chatham – could pose risks to the drinking water of more than one million people in Tidewater.

“The threat to downstream communities like Virginia Beach is real,” echoed Cale Jaffe, a lawyer for the Southern Environmental Law Center, based in Charlottesville.

Peter Martin of Richmond, who once lived in Halifax and is brother to the late Rev. Fred Martin, expressed concern over the Banister River, Buggs Island Lake and Virginia Beach.

Other speakers said the jobs the mine would create were not worth the potential environmental impact or the stigma.

Both Halifax legislators, Del. James Edmunds of Halifax and State Sen. Ruff of Clarksville, oppose uranium mining but neither was present when it was their turn to speak. They were presumably called away by legislative duties as this is the General Assembly’s notoriously busy “crossover week.”

In his absence, Edmunds’ statement was read by Trieste Lockwood of the Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy. In it, he acknowledged the promise of jobs and the goal of energy independence, but he charged the panel: “Be … so sure that nothing will ever go wrong that you would have your children drink the water flowing from the Banister. That you would have them live downwind and that you would encourage them to build their homes nearby and raise your grandchildren.” Edmunds, a cattle and grain farmer, said he owns two miles of Banister riverfront.

“While I understand all too well that we need jobs, some risks are not worth taking … Please don’t take our future in your hands without a disclaimer that some events are simply unpredictable and the outcome of a disaster her would last forever.”

Naomi Hodge-Muse of Martinsville is head of the NAACP and the Sierra Club chapter there. She said in an interview that a bus chartered from there carried 38 people – Democrats, Republicans and tea partiers – all united against the mine.

The largest single contingent of speakers was from Danville and Pittsylvania.

A Pastor Tarpley of Chatham objected to the area being thought of as a “sacrificial zone.”

Sarah Motley, a hospice nurse living in Hampton who grew up on a Pittsylvania County farm, said she had visited uranium mines out west. She asked the panel how much tailings management had changed in the past 30 years and how many mines are federal Superfund sites.

“Protect us,” Eloise Nenon of Chatham asked the 15-member panel.

Monday’s public comment period was part of a three-day meeting, most of it private, conducted by the Academy. It followed a December meeting in Danville and prior meetings in Washington, D.C. Remaining for the body are meetings in Denver and in Saskatchewan, Canada. Its report, paid for by Virginia Uranium Inc., is due late this year and could have significant sway among legislators deciding whether or not to lift the moratorium. They could do so as early as their 2012 session.

Read more:
http://www.thenewsrecord.com/index.php?/news/article/uranium_debate_cites_buggs_island_lake/

NAS Virginia Uranium Mining Meeting Series of Articles

National Academy of Sciences meeting spurs further debate over uranium

• February 10th, 2011 9:39 am ET
• By Daniel Carawan, Richmond Progressive Examiner

A meeting was held on Monday at the Richmond Marriott that brought together a National Academy of Sciences panel of scientists, mining experts, and environmental officials to discuss the moratorium on uranium mining that has existed in Virginia since 1982.

Those who were opposed to lifting the uranium moratorium claimed that the statements by department heads of regulatory bodies in Virginia made it apparent that the state does not have adequate resources to supervise the mining of the biggest uranium deposit in America.

The meeting was an all-day session, the second of its kind.

The findings of the National Academy of Sciences panel are expected to be completed in December on the socioeconomic consequences of lifting the uranium mining ban in Virginia. The committee will not, however, be making any recommendations.

Perhaps needless to say, if there is not enough personnel to supervise uranium mining operations, undue risks to the uranium miners and the surrounding communities far exceeds the potential benefits.

Virginia should be looking for renewable, cleaner, and safer sources of energy like solar, geothermal, and wind, not at another nonrenewable and potentially hazardous form of energy.

Continue reading on Examiner.com: National Academy of Sciences meeting spurs further debate over uranium - Richmond Progressive
Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-richmond/national-academy-of-sciences-meeting-spurs-further-debate-over-uranium?render=print#print#ixzz1DiN3ssLY


Virginia Debates Opening Largest Uranium Mine East of Mississippi

Panel Weighs Lifting Ban on Uranium Mining in Virginia
by Scott Harper

VIRGINIA - The National Academy of Sciences on Monday took up the controversial issue of possible uranium mining in Virginia, with experts testifying for hours and environmentalists protesting what they say is a dangerous business idea.

The all-day hearing came less than a week after the city of Virginia Beach released a study showing that the proposed mine, some 200 miles away in Pittsylvania County, would pose risks to drinking water piped from Lake Gaston to more than 1 million residents of Hampton Roads.

"The threat to downstream communities like Virginia Beach is real," said Cale Jaffe, a senior attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center, based in Charlottesville.

Jaffe was among a crowd of environmentalists who trekked to Richmond to urge the National Academy of Sciences to recommend that state lawmakers keep in place a ban on uranium mining first imposed in 1982.

A company, Virginia Uranium Inc., wants the ban lifted so it can extract and process the radioactive resource buried beneath a historic farm, Coles Hill, outside the town of Chatham.

If developed, Coles Hill would be one of only a few uranium mines ever tried east of the Mississippi River; most U.S. mines are found in arid, western states.

Critics say Virginia's climate is too wet and could lead to flooding that might contaminate the nearby Roanoke River system, which includes Lake Gaston, with uranium wastes called tailings.

Tom Leahy, utilities director for Virginia Beach, testified Monday that most of the tailings would not make it to Lake Gaston. But as much as 20 percent would travel to Kerr Reservoir, where the toxic wastes could threaten water supplies for Norfolk, Virginia Beach and parts of Chesapeake.

"I don't think you'd find a better place in the United States for tailings to move downstream," Leahy told the panel.

Meetings are next planned in Colorado and Canada before wrapping up in California.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/02/08-3


Uranium mining meeting held

Tuesday, February 8, 2011
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS -

RICHMOND — A National Academy of Sciences committee pressed Virginia mining and environmental officials Monday on the state’s ability to regulate uranium mining if a 1982 state ban is lifted.

Opponents said the statements of the department heads made it clear the state doesn’t have the resources to oversee the mining of the largest uranium deposit in the United States.

The meeting was the second all-day session held in Virginia by the panel of scientists, mining experts and environmental officials. Members are expected to complete their findings in December on the consequences of Virginia ending its ban on uranium mining. The committee will not make a recommendation.

Environmentalists and some local residents have opposed tapping the Pittsylvania County deposit because they are fearful the mining and milling will foul the air, rivers, streams and reservoirs with radioactive tailings scattered by torrential rains or hurricanes. Uranium mining in the U.S. has taken place in drier, western climates, and this would be the first on the East Coast.

Virginia Uranium, which estimates the ore’s value at $8 billion to $10 billion.

The directors of three state agencies outlined how various aspects of uranium mining would be overseen by their agencies, with the director of the state’s largest environmental agency making it clear budget cuts already have stretched his staff.

“In the context of resources, we set priorities,” said David K. Paylor, director of the state Department of Environmental Quality, which has 800 employees. “The things of the highest importance continue to get done.”

The directors of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy and the Department of Conservation and Recreation also spoke before the committee. They at times struggled to explain to the committee how the state bureaucracies would regulate uranium mining.

Before that happens, however, the General Assembly will have to lift the decades-old ban.

Opponents of uranium mining said the statements did not leave them encouraged the state is up to the task.

“We don’t have the financial resources to put the kind of robust regulatory program in place you would need,” said Cale Jaffe, a staff attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center.

A man who once held Paylor’s job agreed with that assessment. “I didn’t hear anything that was very comforting, other than we’ll make cuts someplace else,” said Robert Burnley, a former director of the state DEQ who now works as a consultant with the SELC. “Something’s going to be cut.”

The committee also accepted a study from Virginia Beach that concluded the water supply of the state’s largest city could be threatened if a historic storm lashed the area where the mining would occur.

The National Academy study is one of at least several looking at uranium mining. A legislative committee has approved $200,000 for a socio-economic study, and local studies are also planned or under way.

http://www.martinsvillebulletin.com/article.cfm?ID=27249


Speakers at NAS Meeting discussed uranium mining in Va.

By REX SPRINGSTON
Published: February 08, 2011

Concern citizens of VA are worried about a proposed uranium mine in Southside Virginia say it would cause water pollution that cash-short regulators would be hard-pressed to address.

Supporters said the mining would be done safely while providing hundreds of jobs.

Speakers expressed the diverging views Monday during a Richmond meeting of a panel studying the safety of uranium mining in Virginia. State officials requested the study because Virginia Uranium Inc. wants to mine and mill uranium in Pittsylvania County.

Some fear that radioactive waste could get into streams and hurt economic development.

"There is no win in this. Pandora's box needs to stay closed," said Naomi Hodge-Muse, president of the Martinsville-Henry County Voters League and the Martinsville NAACP.

Uranium is a radioactive fuel for nuclear-power plants. Virginia has banned its mining since 1982, but Virginia Uranium wants the ban lifted. The study should be finished by the end of this year. The General Assembly could reconsider the mining ban in 2012.

Concerned citizens include Virginia Beach, which fears that a storm could wash radioactive waste into streams leading to Beach drinking waters.

Robert Burnley, a former director of the state Department of Environmental Quality, said state oversight "won't be as strong as it should be because of budgetary restraints." He is a consultant for the Southern Environmental Law Center, which opposes the mine.

DEQ Director David Paylor said, despite limited resources, "the things of the highest importance continue to get done."

The National Academy of Sciences is doing the study. Virginia Uranium says about 119 million pounds of uranium ore, worth $8 billion, lies underground at Pittsylvania.

http://www2.nelsoncountytimes.com/news/2011/feb/08/tdmet01-speakers-voice-support-opposition-for-uran-ar-826997/

Study drinking water first (Uranium Mining)

Letter: Phillip M. Lovelace
Tuesday, February 1, 2011

In the Martinsville Bulletin on Jan. 16, Virginia Uranium Inc. project manager Patrick Wales stated they have 15,000 acres in their control and “probably” would mine less than 15 percent of the 15,000 acres in Pittsylvania County.

At the National Academy of Science meeting in Danville in December, it was my understanding that Virginia Uranium Inc. was only interested in mining and milling Coles Hill and downplayed any interest in deposits anywhere else in Virginia.

Coles Hill is around 3,000 acres; why would you need 12,000 acres more unless you were “probably” going to mine? Is this what the farmers were told — there is uranium on your land, and we want to lease it but we “probably” won’t mine this 12,000 acres?

This is why I am pushing so hard to make sure our water is studied, we don’t know how much land has been leased in our county and in Virginia.

Del. Lee Ware, chairman of the uranium subcommittee, requested to the National Academy of Science in Washington, D.C., meeting (that I attended) that the hydrogeology of the state of Virginia be studied. With his help and talking with the NAS committee about the hydrogeology, I am pleased someone with experience in hydrogeology has been added to the National Academy of Science Committee.

The USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) stated at the Washington, D.C., National Academy of Science meeting that it would take a long time to study the hydrogeology of Virginia, meaning several years.

Any attempt to use old study data from the Marline research cannot work to fast track this study. The fracture networks have had to change due to the earth tremors at this location and throughout Virginia in the last few years.

Our Virginia politicians must be patient and not lift the moratorium until a state-wide study of our drinking water is completed. This will take a lot longer than 2011.

Remember we live in a rural area where most of our drinking water comes from wells; they must not and cannot be destroyed.

Phillip M. Lovelace
Gretna, VA

Read more:
http://www.martinsvillebulletin.com/article.cfm?ID=27148

Uranium mining focus of Richmond NAS meeting

Opponents from southside and western Virginia attend hearing

wdbj7.com
UPDATED:
Associated Press
1:19 PM EST, February 7, 2011

Opponents of uranium mining in Virginia took their concerns to Richmond Monday, as the panel conducting a uranium study prepared for a final town hall meeting.

Residents of at least five counties, and members of environmental and community groups traveled by bus to Richmond. They were hoping to share their concern with state lawmakers.

Naomi Hodge-Muse is President of the Martinsville Henry County NAACP, and the local chapter of the Sierra Club. "We want to make sure that the people of Richmond and the General Assembly understand the dangers of this ill thought out plan," Hodge-Muse told News 7.

Rev. Christine Ziglar travelled to Richmond from Roanoke. "And we want to make sure the ban stays on uranium that has been placed there," Ziglar said.

The panel from the National Academy of Sciences is in Richmond for a three day meeting on uranium mining. Members heard from a representative of Virginia Beach who detailed a study on the potential impact of uranium mining on the region’s water supply.

The group’s report is expected by the end of the year.

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

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- A Virginia Beach study that raises drinking-water concerns about a proposed uranium mine in Southside Virginia has been presented to a National Academy of Sciences panel meeting in Richmond.

The study submitted Monday concludes that an extraordinary weather event could flush radioactive contaminants into water used by Virginia Beach residents. Virginia's largest city voted in December 2008 to oppose uranium mining.

Virginia Uranium Inc. wants to tap into uranium deposit.

The panel is studying the statewide impact of ending a 1982 state ban on uranium mining.

Read more:
wdbj7.com/news/wdbj7-uranium-mining-focus-of-richmond-meeting-20110207,0,3694168.story

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?


Babyproofing:  Follow these green tips when babyproofing your home:

• Use sustainable wood for cupboard latches: You can create latches out of sustainable wood.
• Buy a wooden baby gate: Protect your child from the stairs with wooden baby gates.
• Create cushions: Use old clothing and material to protect your little one against hard edges.

Baby Gear:  With these tips, you can make your baby gear work for you and the Earth:

• Use BPA-free feeding items: Bottles and eating utensils should be BPA-free.
• Host a baby gear exchange party
• Consider what you can live without: You may not need a wipe warmer, swing, or exersaucer.
• Find a wooden high chair
• Borrow big items: If you know other moms who have baby stuff that’s unused, ask if you can borrow their items.
• Choose organic clothes
• Turn to cloth diapers: Save cash, cut down on diaper rashes, and drastically reduce your baby’s environmental impact by using cloth diapers.
• Find eco-friendly baby toys: Look for cotton or wood toys instead of plastic ones.
• Turn old items into baby gear: T-shirts can be cut into bibs, and towels can be turned into washcloths.
• Avoid items that will only be used shortly
• Seek out recycled baby gear

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

Meeting: Keep the Ban on Virginia Uranium Mining and Milling

Meeting: Keep the Ban on Virginia Uranium Mining and Milling

Note: The public is invited to a follow-up meeting to strategies ways of improving public awareness about uranium mining and keeping the Virginia mining moratorium in place

Time:Tuesday,February 8th from 7 to 9 p.m.

Place: Montgomery-Floyd Regional Library

321 West Main Street

Floyd, VA 24091

(540) 745-2947

Uranium mining: Virginians band together to keep moratorium in place- Meeting Feb 8th

Photo: Cheri Chalfant, one of the Floyd residents who organized the meeting, said she was happy to see that so many good people of Floyd are ready to work with Pittsylvania Countians to keep uranium mining out of Virginia. Photo by Colleen Redman

By Wanda Combs
Published: February 3, 2011
Special to the Press
By Colleen Redman

About 40 people attended an informational meeting Thursday night at the Floyd Country Store to learn more about an organized campaign to mine uranium in Virginia.

Up until now uranium mining in the U.S. has been limited to dry and lightly populated places out west, but, with the price of uranium on the rise, a Canadian backed company, a landowner and other investors are intent on bringing it to the east, and specifically to Pittsylvania County, Virginia. Before than can happen a uranium mining moratorium that dates back to 1982 must be lifted.

A group of organizers in support of the mining moratorium traveled from Pittsylvania County (about 75 miles east of Floyd) to facilitate the meeting. Deborah Lovelace, founder of the nonprofit League of Individuals for the Environment (LIFE), gave a power point presentation, outlining the uses and hazards of uranium and the logistics of mining operations.

Uranium is a radioactive metal found in the ground that’s primarily used to make nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons. It’s toxic to humans and the environment, explained Lovelace, whose mother’s family is from Floyd and whose husband’s family has been farming in Pittsylvania County for 10 generations.

“It takes 1,000 pounds of ore to produce one pound of uranium, which leaves 999 pounds of mill tailings. The mill tailings retain 85% of their toxic radioactivity for 300,000 years,” Lovlelace said. Exposure to uranium adversely affects the kidney, brain, liver and heart. Neurological, genetic, and reproductive systems are also damaged by exposure. Long term storage of uranium’s toxic waste is an ongoing issue.

Pittsylvania County resident Hunter Austin reported that uranium toxicity can enter a person’s DNA and be passed down to future generations. “It has been studied. Everywhere they mine uranium they have had health problems within about a 50-mile radius,” he said. A Floyd resident commented that cancer and birth defects are up by 81% in Fallujah, Iraq, because of U.S. weapons made with depleted uranium.

Those in attendance learned that a uranium mining operation involves an open pit or underground mining, a pulverizing mill, and a chemical plant. Mining photos were shown and a United States Geological Survey map was displayed, highlighting potential uranium mining sites throughout rural Virginia and North Carolina and up and down the Blue Ridge.

Do we need uranium for energy? According to Lovelace’s research, the Department of Energy had begun selling excess uranium to friendly countries. “It’s stockpiled. We buy it from Russia to keep it out of the hands of unfriendly countries.” Of the 1,100 nuclear reactors in the world only 430 are used to generate electricity. Uranium provides about 4% of the world’s non-renewable energy, Lovelace stated.

The contamination of natural resources associated with mining was discussed. One Floyd resident with West Virginia ties referred to the mining companies as terrorists, saying “What do you call poisoning our water if it’s not terrorism? Mining has already ruined half the state of West Virginia and the mining companies have taken no responsibility.”

Other frustrations raised by the group included the lack of home insurance coverage for radiation contamination or damage due to mine blasting, and the cost to taxpayers for radioactive clean up and storage.

Another study is being funded by Virginia Uranium Inc., the company seeking to mine. Organizers reported that Virginia Uranium Inc. is well funded and politically connected, which increases the possibility that the moratorium will be lifted. An estimated 110 million pounds of uranium worth almost $10 billion dollars (as reported by the Washington Post) is at stake for the mining backers.

Several people expressed concern that if the moratorium is lifted it will open the door to uranium mining all over Virginia. “If it’s lifted and they go after Pittsylvania County, it’s going to ruin everything around,” Austin said. Exploratory drilling in Pittsylvania County is already underway.

“There were 62,000 acres of Virginia land leased in 1980’s and 42,000 of those were in Pittsylvania County,” said Danville resident Karen Maute. Maute reported that uranium leases were sought in Floyd County back in the 70’s and 80’s. She suggested the county pass a resolution banning uranium mining and mentioned that zoning laws can also be a tool to keep mining out of the county.

Lovelace suggested that concerned citizens educate themselves and write, call or email their local, state and federal representatives. “I’m not anti anything. I’m pro keeping the moratorium in place,” she concluded.

Note: The public is invited to a follow-up meeting to strategize ways of improving public awareness about uranium mining and keeping the Virginia mining moratorium in place. The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday,February 8th from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Floyd library.

Read more:
http://www.swvatoday.com/news/article/uranium_mining_virginians_band_together_to_keep_moratorium_in_place/9058/

NAS uranium study committee to meet in Richmond

By Tara Bozick
Published: January 24, 2011

The National Academy of Sciences committee examining the potential impacts of uranium mining in Virginia will meet in Richmond on Feb. 7.

NAS will hold a town hall meeting to take public comment from 6 to 9 p.m., according to a NAS news e-mail.

The committee plans to hear from Tom Leahy, director of public utilities for Virginia Beach, about downstream water concerns. Virginia Beach commissioned a study on the potential impacts of uranium mining and milling on its water supply.

The committee also expects a presentation from James Beard of the Virginia Museum of Natural History on the Coles Hill uranium deposit.

In the afternoon, the committee plans to hear presentations from representatives of state agencies: the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, the Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Department of Environmental Quality.

The Richmond meeting is for information gathering and the committee will not recommend whether uranium mining should be permitted. The committee will meet in closed sessions Feb. 6 and Feb. 8.

The Feb. 7 meeting is tentatively scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. at the Richmond Marriott at 500 E. Broad St. Sign-up for the public meeting begins at 5 p.m.

Those interested in attending should register by contacting Courtney Gibbs at (202) 334-2744 or cgibbs@nas.edu

For more information, visit    http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/
 and search project title “Uranium Mining in Virginia.”

Read more:
http://www2.wsls.com/news/2011/jan/24/nas-uranium-study-committee-meet-richmond-ar-795946/

Keep the Ban on Uranium: Upcoming Events

Uranium Mining and Milling Meeting:

When:  Feb. 5  @11am              

Where:  El Cazador Restaurant

15 N Main St, Chatham, VA 24531-3113, (434) 432-4288

Sponsor:  Sierra Club is sponsoring Robert Tohe a Native American to speak on his personal experiences of uranium mining.

For more information or to RSVP please contact: mary.rafferty@sierraclub.org

 It is slated to last an hour and encourage everyone to stay and eat lunch afterwards at their own expense.

VB releases uranium mining study: Mining could affect drinking water after storm

Published : Tuesday, 01 Feb 2011, 5:23 PM EST

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (WAVY) - The City of Virginia Beach released findings of a study conducted in response to Virginia Uranium Inc.'s plan to develop a uranium mining operation in Pittsylvania County.

The area in southwest Virginia is believed to contain a very large untapped deposit of uranium, but the site could be susceptible to heavy rains and flooding, according to a news release from the City of Virginia Beach.

Officials said this poses the threat of radiation flowing into downstream drinking water supplies, including Lake Gaston, which supplies drinking water to Virginia Beach and indirectly to Chesapeake and Norfolk.

According to the study, the impacts to the drinking water supplies would be significant but not permanent after a worst-case storm.

Depending on weather conditions, it could take two months to two years to completely flush radioactive contaminants out of Lake Gaston.

Environmental and water quality impacts upstream would be greater and long lasting.

A state ban on uranium mining would need to be lifted by the General Assembly before mining operations could begin.

Read more:
http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/local_news/va_beach/vb-releases-uranium-mining-study

Manufacturing Thirst: The Hidden Water Costs of Our Industrial Economy

From the mining of raw materials to energy production to the manufacturing process itself, industry guzzles tons of water.

A 1,400-megawatt nuclear reactor requires enough water to fill 5,000 Olympic swimming pools per year, according to a 2006 Australian study. The study, commissioned by the Queensland government, warns that the country's severe drought could be exacerbated by building more nuclear power plants, which use about 25 percent more water than coal plants. The Union of Concerned Scientists calls nuclear power plants' need for water "insatiable."

The mining of the coal and uranium needed to feed these electricity stations is also highly destructive to local water sources.

Until it was shut down by a lawsuit in 2005, the infamous Peabody Western Coal Company used precious groundwater from the dry Navajo and Hopi Nations to mix with pulverized coal and piped the slurry all the way from its Black Mesa mine in Arizona 275 miles to the Mohave Generating Station in Nevada. In Appalachia, many residents are no longer able to drink from their wells because blasting for coal has fractured their water tables and left their wells dangerously contaminated.

In 2003, Maria Gunnoe, a West Virginia mother who gained national attention for her activism against coal strip-mining, found her well contaminated from runoff from two nearby containing ponds storing waste from coal processing -- waste that included selenium, lime, arsenic, and other toxins. "I had a 55-gallon fish tank, and I changed the water and this albino catfish I had had for eight years died instantly," she said. "The water was all green. This happened overnight. When I turned on the shower, the smell was so awful I couldn't take it. My kids and I all got skin reactions."

Gunnoe started buying bottled water for all their household needs, to the tune of $250 a month. To add insult to injury, the road to her house was so damaged from blasting at the mine that she had to walk long distances to carry the heavy store-bought water home. And once-lovely Appalachian river valleys have been "in-filled" with waste from mountaintop removal mining. That is, the rivers essentially have been filled up with jumbled earth and ore sliced off to get at the lucrative coal seams.

Regional activists have been fighting a loophole in the Clean Water Act that currently allows this destruction to occur.

Uranium mining poses similar environmental risks.

Record-high prices for uranium in the past year mean that companies are hoping once again to mine uranium in the American Southwest, home to a thriving uranium industry from the 1940s to the 1980s. Much of the mining was done on or near Navajo land, and many of the miners were Navajos. The government is still processing compensation claims for miners suffering from lung cancer and other diseases caused by uranium exposure. Navajo Larry King remembers seeing his cows' coats turn yellowish and their hooves brittle, and even seeing them keel over and die after drinking from uranium-contaminated wells on his land.

"Before, even people drank water from the windmill," says King, referring to the well that is pumped by wind power. "We bathed in it and everything. Then they told us it wasn't good for humans, so we had to start hauling water from Gallup. But some families still let their livestock drink there. They're drinking uranium." King remembers the day in 1979 when the Rio Puerco River, which runs by his land, was inundated with 90 million gallons of radioactive uranium-laden liquid from a waste pond after a barricade burst.

"Cattle drank from the wash, and they just started dropping dead for a few years," he says. "Even now I find bones there." This time around, companies want to use a method called "in situ recovery." Instead of hauling the uranium-laced ore out of the ground, they would inject water into uranium-laced aquifers, mobilizing the uranium so it can be pumped out along with the water. Companies aiming to use this process say they will use reverse osmosis to clean the water to its original baseline condition. But critics are doubtful.

Read more:
http://www.alternet.org/water/104323/comments/?page=3

Going Green While Pregnant: 100 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?
Maternity Clothes:  These tips offer a great way to feel good about what you’re wearing:

• Find natural maternity wear: Organic cottons, bamboo, and hemp make great options for Earth-friendly maternity wear.
• Stop dry cleaning: Dry cleaners can include toxic solvents.
• Don’t wear maternity clothes: Shop in your own closet and wear empire waist tops, long dresses, and skirts to stretch your maternity wardrobe.
• Accept hand me downs
• Use a green laundry detergent: Wash your maternity clothes in a laundry detergent that’s Earth-approved.
• Shop consignment stores

Household:  These tips will help you go green around the home for your baby:

• Keep your air well-ventilated: Open windows at home, work, and in your car to get some fresh air.
• Create a garden: Eat fresh at home, just be sure to avoid chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
• Install energy efficient products
• Test your home for toxins: Find out if your house has lead paint, radon, or other toxic chemicals.
• Leave shoes at the door: Shoes can track pollutants inside, so be careful to leave them at the door.
• Don’t use air fresheners: Air fresheners can cause headaches in mothers as well as infant diarrhea.
• Avoid renovating
• Use baby detergent for your household: Wash sheets, towels, and other household laundry with baby-safe detergents.
• Get rid of bug spray: Trade your bug spray for sticky traps and bait stations.
• Avoid wood polishes: Wood polishes with nitrobenzene have been linked to birth defects and cancer.
• Sleep on organic sheets
• Find organic garden supplies
• Don’t use wood finishes: Wood finishes can be harmful for pregnant women.
• Avoid spot removers
• Clean with baking soda and vinegar: This household cleaner offers a green way to get the dirt out.
• Stay away from glues: Household glues may have hazardous chemicals in them.
• Avoid harsh cleaners
• Find a green exterminator: If you need extermination services, find a service provider that offers green treatments.
• Use a water softener: Soft water is good for your (and baby’s) skin as well as the environment.
• Use nontoxic home furnishings: Get rid of furniture with formaldehyde, flame retardants, and gas emissions.
• Gather indoor plants: Clean your indoor air with the help of plants.

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