Uranium focus of lecture

 

 

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

By PAUL COLLINS - Bulletin Staff Writer

A hydrogeologist from Colorado said Monday night that the uranium mining and milling industry has a history of contaminating water resources.


Robert E. Moran added that he is not aware of modern technology in that industry having a track record of adequately protecting water resources today.

Moran gave a talk and answered questions in a program that lasted more than an hour at the Virginia Museum of Natural History. Nearly 50 people attended the talk, titled “Uranium Mining: What You Need to Know.” The Dan River Basin Association, an environmental group, sponsored it.

Moran said he was not saying that what has happened historically in the uranium mining and milling industry would happen under Virginia Uranium Inc.’s proposal to mine and mill uranium at Coles Hill in Pittsylvania County. He said there are many unknowns about the proposed operation, the company should make more information public, and the public should be asking questions.

“You need to think about long term, not short term. It’s your kids and your grandkids that will have to deal with this,” Moran said of the potential consequences of uranium mining and milling.

damage caused by contaminated waste being blown by wind.

Among the points he made about the uranium mining and milling industry were:

• Most operations that he is aware of are in drier, more sparsely populated areas.

• Governments generally do not require large enough bonds of mining and milling companies to cover the perpetual costs of the site, including environmental cleanup and maintaining the site forever. He said those costs can be “phenomenal.”

After an operation closes, the ownership of the site is given to the federal government.

• Governments generally inadequately enforce regulations on the industry intended to protect the public.

• The industry goes through economic boom and bust cycles. A company may plan to operate a number of decades but close after only a few years if the price of uranium plummets.

• There always are environmental impacts from mining and milling, and it may be many years before the impacts are known. That doesn’t mean necessarily that a proposed operation should be rejected, but that the “tradeoffs” should be weighed.

• He is not aware of any uranium Super Fund hazardous waste site in which a contaminated groundwater supply was totally cleaned up.

Read more:
http://www.martinsvillebulletin.com/article.cfm?ID=30865

Ginger root reduces digestive inflammation markers to lower colon cancer risk

Monday, October 31, 2011 by: John Phillip


NaturalNews) Since ancient times, ginger has a long tradition of being very effective in alleviating symptoms of gastrointestinal distress. Modern scientific research has revealed that ginger possesses numerous therapeutic properties including antioxidant effects, an ability to inhibit the formation of inflammatory compounds, and direct anti-inflammatory effects. The result of a new body of research published in the journal Cancer Prevention Research, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, demonstrates the specific anti-inflammatory action of the spice on the colon. Health-minded individuals will want to include ginger as part of their regular diet or include an organically harvested supplement to dramatically lower inflammatory risk markers for colon cancer.

Dr. Suzanna Zick, a research assistant professor at the University of Michigan Medical School, and her team assembled 30 patient participants to conduct the study. Each was provided with two grams of ginger root supplements per day or a placebo for a period of 28 days. After the test timeframe, researchers measured standard levels of colon inflammation and found statistically significant reductions in most of these markers. They also found trends toward significant reductions in a number of other colon cancer biomarkers.


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034018_ginger_root_colon_cancer.html#ixzz1cg2EubFo

Comments:  Great letter, thanks Mr. Lester!



By ANDREW LESTER
Tuesday, November 22, 2011 9:07 AM EST

The implication that uranium ore is no more harmful than a bunch of bananas is well, bananas.

In his conclusion, uranium industry consultant Steven Brown states that people are not entitled to their own science, implying that critics of uranium mining in Virginia have not been truthful.

Yet Brown forgets to mention any of the science that demonstrates negative health effects from uranium mining.

In addition, he mentions that uranium mining has occurred in Utah and Colorado for years, while failing to mention how many of those mining sites have had accidental releases and contamination.

The people of Virginia deserve access to all of the information before they decide on the important issue of whether to allow this potentially dangerous activity to occur in their backyard.

Brown is correct to say that we are constantly exposed to natural levels of background radiation. But not all radiation is created equal.

Bananas can be considered radioactive because of their natural potassium, but only .012 percent of potassium in the world is its radioactive isotope.

Our bodies safely regulate this essential mineral. They do not similarly regulate uranium, nor do we need it to survive.

Uranium, like many other radioactive elements, decays into daughter elements, one of which is radium-226. Radium-226 emits gamma radiation that can cause leukemia and bone cancer in humans.

Radon, another daughter product of uranium known by the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry to be a human carcinogen, is a tasteless, odorless gas that can be released by uranium mining and can enter even the best sealed home.

Contrary to Mr. Brown's opinion, studies on the impacts of uranium mining in the Navajo Nation, which includes land in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah - where extensive mining began in the 1940's - have demonstrated a link between residency near uranium mining sites and increased incidences of health problems.

Higher rates of kidney disease have been linked to uranium waste exposure; and higher rates of diabetes, high blood pressure, cancers, genetic damage, and autoimmune diseases have plagued residents close to mining sites in the Navajo nation.

One hopes that Brown would not attribute their health problems to bananas or smoke detectors.

Another key difference between bananas and uranium waste is their respective concentrations of heavy metals: a banana does not typically contain other heavy metals, but uranium mining waste is chock full of them, including arsenic, lead, iron, cobalt, nickel, copper, manganese, zinc, and more.

(Note: although the trace amounts of some of the above in bananas are important to health, the heavy metals in uranium waste do not constitute good nutrition).

Since uranium is only .2 percent of the mined ore on average in the United States, almost everything is left over as waste that is potentially toxic to humans, plants, and animals.

As evidenced by numerous incidences of water contamination across the country, uranium tailings (the waste), pose a threat to both groundwater and surface water.

Surface waterways can be contaminated by runoff from tailings ponds resulting from accidents, dam failure, and weather events as well as through recharge from contaminated aquifers.

Heavy metals like arsenic can leach into soil and rock and contaminate groundwater aquifers.

These toxic contaminants can affect people far away from actual mining facilities, and have been linked to numerous health issues, including many forms of cancer, nervous system disorders, infertility, and birth defects.


Brown does not talk about uranium mining's dirty secrets: if there really are no health effects from uranium mining, why did the Navajo nation, with its long history of experience with the industry, pass a ban in 2005 prohibiting any new uranium mining on their lands?

Virginia would be wise to learn from the lessons of the past, and yes, look at the science - all of the science.

Better make sure that Brown and other uranium industry consultants divulge all the data, instead of throwing bananas at us.

Andrew Lester is executive director of the Roanoke River Basin Association.

Read more:
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2011/11/22/chatham/opinion/opinion04.txt

Offshore Wind Gets A Virginia Foothold

by Nino Marchetti, November 2nd, 2011
By Peter Brennan, Offshore Wind Wire

Joris Benninga and Paul Vosbeek: Poseidon Atlantic will be a full service turbine testing and certification facility, providing a coherent portfolio of sites for prototype testing, infrastructure, wind measurements and wind turbine testing and certification services. It is geared towards wind turbine manufacturers who need IEC certification, or wish to run extensive research programs for their new turbines. Also developers or large utilities that want to test innovative new turbines before applying them in large numbers can be clients. Finally also Transmission System Operators (grid companies) can be clients as they can test the impact of new turbine designs on their grids.

Poseidon Atlantic will assist the manufacturers in obtaining required licenses, grid connection, access roads, and glass fiber network infrastructure. It will provide manufacturers with a complete portfolio of IEC compliant measurements required for prototype certification. Since the site is designated for turbine testing at least one full certification measurement campaign (or equivalent) will be completed per turbine. This business model extends the successful test center managed by Ecofys at Lelystad, in the Netherlands.

The turbines are tested along IEC prescribed procedures for electrical and mechanical safety, performance and noise production. Typically wind measurements, production measurements and other monitoring activities are the core of the test work. After this, the test results are verified by an independent verifier. After IEC testing is completed, normally longer term tests are continued for 5 years or more.

Read more:
http://www.earthtechling.com/2011/11/offshore-wind-gets-a-virginia-foothold/

Radon Myths

 

Radon Myths

MYTH: Scientists are not sure that radon really is a problem.
FACT: Although some scientists dispute the precise number of deaths due to radon, all the major health organizations (like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Lung Association and the American Medical Association) agree with estimates that radon causes thousands of preventable lung cancer deaths every year. This is especially true among smokers, since the risk to smokers is much greater than to non-smokers.

MYTH: Radon testing is difficult, time-consuming and expensive.
FACT: Radon testing is easy. You can test your home yourself or hire a qualified radon test company. Either approach takes only a small amount of time and effort.

MYTH: Homes with radon problems can't be fixed.
FACT: There are simple solutions to radon problems in homes. Hundreds of thousands of homeowners have already fixed radon problems in their homes. Most homes can be fixed for about the same cost as other common home repairs; check with one or more qualified mitigators. Call your state radon office for help in identifying qualified mitigation contractors.

MYTH: Radon affects only certain kinds of homes.
FACT: House construction can affect radon levels. However, radon can be a problem in homes of all types: old homes, new homes, drafty homes, insulated homes, homes with basements, and homes without basements. Local geology, construction materials, and how the home was built are among the factors that can affect radon levels in homes.

MYTH: Radon is only a problem in certain parts of the country.
FACT: High radon levels have been found in every state. Radon problems do vary from area to area, but the only way to know your radon level is to test.

MYTH: A neighbor's test result is a good indication of whether your home has a problem.
FACT: It's not. Radon levels can vary greatly from home to home. The only way to know if your home has a radon problem is to test it.

MYTH: Everyone should test their water for radon.
FACT: Although radon gets into some homes through water, it is important to first test the air in the home for radon. If your water comes from a public water supply that uses ground water, call your water supplier. If high radon levels are found and the home has a private well, call the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1 800-426-4791 for information on testing your water.

MYTH: It's difficult to sell homes where radon problems have been discovered.
FACT: Where radon problems have been fixed, home sales have not been blocked or frustrated. The added protection is some times a good selling point.

MYTH: I've lived in my home for so long, it doesn't make sense to take action now.
FACT: You will reduce your risk of lung cancer when you reduce radon levels, even if you've lived with a radon problem for a long time.

MYTH: Short-term tests can't be used for making a decision about whether to fix your home.
FACT:A short-term test, followed by a second short-term test* can be used to decide whether to fix your home. However, the closer the average of your two short-term tests is to 4 pCi/L, the less certain you can be about whether your year-round average is above or below that level. Keep in mind that radon levels below 4 pCi/L still pose some risk. Radon levels can be reduced in most homes to 2 pCi/L or below.


For Further Information
www.epa.gov/radon EPA's main radon page. Includes links to publications, Hotlines, private radon proficiency programs and more.
If you need further information about radon or would like to ask a question, see our Frequently Asked Questions system at http://iaq.supportportal.com and select the topic area radon. You can use this interface to submit questions and subscribe to specific topic information.

Radon Hotlines

1-800-SOS-RADON (1-800-767-7236)*
National Radon Hotline Purchase radon test kits by phone.
1-800-55RADON (1-800-557-2366)*
National Radon Helpline Get live help for your radon questions.
1-800-644-6999*
National Radon Fix-It Line For general information on fixing or reducing the radon level in your home.
1-800-426-4791
Safe Drinking Water Hotline, operated under contract to EPA. For information on testing, treatment, radon in water, and drinking water standards.
*Operated by Kansas State University in partnership with EPA

EPA Regional Office, State Radon Coordinators, Tribal Program Offices

Call your state office for additional help with any of your radon questions. Up-to-date information on how to contact your state radon office, your EPA Regional Offices and Tribal Coordinators is available at www.epa.gov/radon/whereyoulive.html (just click on your state or EPA regional office). Visit www.epa.gov/iaqtribal for information specifically presented for Tribal Partners.

Publications

Radon publications in print can be downloaded, most are in HTML and as PDF files. You can request a print-quality version of this document, see www.epa.gov/radon/pubs

SURGEON GENERAL HEALTH ADVISORY:
"Indoor radon is the second-leading cause of lung cancer in the United States and breathing it over prolonged periods can present a significant health risk to families all over the country. It's important to know that this threat is completely preventable. Radon can be detected with a simple test and fixed through well-established venting techniques." January 2005

U.S. EPA Assessment of Risks from Radon in Homes
In June 2003, the EPA revised its risk assessment for radon exposure in homes. EPA estimates that about 21,000 annual lung cancer deaths are radon related. EPA also concluded that the effects of radon and cigarette smoking are synergistic, so that smokers are at higher risk from radon. EPA's revised estimates are based on the National Academy of Sciences 1999 BEIR IV (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation) Report which concluded that radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking. See www.epa.gov/radon/risk_assessment.html

Read more:
http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/citguide.html

The Risk of Living With Radon

 

 

The Risk of Living With Radon


Radon gas decays into radioactive particles that can get trapped in your lungs when you breathe. As they break down further, these particles release small bursts of energy. This can damage lung tissue and lead to lung cancer over the course of your lifetime. Not everyone exposed to elevated levels of radon will develop lung cancer. And the amount of time between exposure and the onset of the disease may be many years.

Like other environmental pollutants, there is some uncertainty about the magnitude of radon health risks. However, we know more about radon risks than risks from most other cancer-causing substances. This is because estimates of radon risks are based on studies of cancer in humans (underground miners).

Smoking combined with radon is an especially serious health risk. Stop smoking and lower your radon level to reduce your lung cancer risk.


Scientists are more certain about radon risks than from most other cancer-causing substances.

Children have been reported to have greater risk than adults of certain types of cancer from radiation, but there are currently no conclusive data on whether children are at greater risk than adults from radon.

Your chances of getting lung cancer from radon depend mostly on:
•How much radon is in your home
•The amount of time you spend in your home
•Whether you are a smoker or have ever smoked

Radon Risk If You Smoke

Radon Level

If 1,000 people who smoked were exposed to this level over a lifetime*...

The risk of cancer from radon exposure compares to**...


Radon Risk If You Smoke

Radon Level	If 1,000 people who smoked were exposed to this level over a lifetime*...	The risk of cancer from radon exposure compares to**...	WHAT TO DO: Stop smoking and...
20 pCi/L	About 260 people could get lung cancer	250 times the risk of drowning	Fix your home
10 pCi/L	About 150 people could get lung cancer	200 times the risk of dying in a home fire	Fix your home
8 pCi/L	About 120 people could get lung cancer	30 times the risk of dying in a fall	Fix your home
4 pCi/L	About 62 people could get lung cancer	5 times the risk of dying in a car crash	Fix your home
2 pCi/L	About 32 people could get lung cancer	6 times the risk of dying from poison	Consider fixing between 2 and 4 pCi/L
1.3 pCi/L	About 20 people could get lung cancer	(Average indoor radon level)	(Reducing radon levels below 2 pCi/L is difficult.)
0.4 pCi/L	About 3 people could get lung cancer	(Average outdoor radon level)

Note: If you are a former smoker, your risk may be lower.
* Lifetime risk of lung cancer deaths from EPA Assessment of Risks from Radon in Homes (EPA 402-R-03-003).** Comparison data calculated using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 1999-2001 National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Reports.

Radon Risk If You've Never Smoked

Radon Level	If 1,000 people who never smoked were exposed to this level over a lifetime*...	The risk of cancer from radon exposure compares to**...	WHAT TO DO:
20 pCi/L	About 36 people could get lung cancer	35 times the risk of drowning	Fix your home

10 pCi/L	About 18 people could get lung cancer	20 times the risk of dying in a home fire	Fix your home
8 pCi/L	About 15 people could get lung cancer	4 times the risk of dying in a fall	Fix your home
4 pCi/L	About 7 people could get lung cancer	The risk of dying in a car crash	Fix your home
2 pCi/L	About 4 person could get lung cancer	The risk of dying from poison	Consider fixing between 2 and 4 pCi/L
1.3 pCi/L	About 2 people could get lung cancer	(Average indoor radon level)	(Reducing radon levels below 2 pCi/L is difficult.)

Note: If you are a former smoker, your risk may be higher.  * Lifetime risk of lung cancer deaths from EPA Assessment of Risks from Radon in Homes (EPA 402-R-03-003). ** Comparison data calculated using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 1999-2001 National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Reports.


It's never too late to reduce your risk of lung cancer. Don't wait to test and fix a radon problem. If you are a smoker, stop smoking.

Read more:
http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/citguide.html

The Thanksgiving Story

Most school children are taught that the first Thanksgiving was held in 1621 with the Pilgrims and Indians, let us take a closer look at just what took place leading up to that event, and then what happened in the centuries afterward that finally gave us our modern Thanksgiving.

The Pilgrims who sailed to this country aboard the Mayflower were originally members of the English Separatist Church (a Puritan sect). They had earlier fled their home in England and sailed to Holland (The Netherlands) to escape religious persecution.

The Pilgrims set ground at Plymouth Rock on December 11, 1620. Their first winter was devastating. At the beginning of the following fall, they had lost 46 of the original 102 who sailed on the Mayflower. But the harvest of 1621 was a bountiful one. And the remaining colonists decided to celebrate with a feast - including 91 natives who had helped the Pilgrims survive their first year. It is believed that the Pilgrims would not have made it through the year without the help of the natives. The feast was more of a traditional English harvest festival than a true "thanksgiving" observance. It lasted three days.

Governor William Bradford sent "four men fowling" after wild ducks and geese. It is not certain that wild turkey was part of their feast. However, it is certain that they had venison. The term "turkey" was used by the Pilgrims to mean any sort of wild fowl.

Another modern staple at almost every Thanksgiving table is pumpkin pie. But it is unlikely that the first feast included that treat. The supply of flour had been long diminished, so there was no bread or pastries of any kind. However, they did eat boiled pumpkin, and they produced a type of fried bread from their corn crop. There was also no milk, cider, potatoes, or butter. There was no domestic cattle for dairy products, and the newly-discovered potato was still considered by many Europeans to be poisonous. But the feast did include fish, berries, watercress, lobster, dried fruit, clams, venison, and plums.

This "thanksgiving" feast was not repeated the following year. Many years passed before the event was repeated. It wasn't until June of 1676 that another Day of thanksgiving was proclaimed. On June 20 of that year the governing council of Charlestown, Massachusetts, held a meeting to determine how best to express thanks for the good fortune that had seen their community securely established. By unanimous vote they instructed Edward Rawson, the clerk, to proclaim June 29 as a day of thanksgiving. It is notable that this thanksgiving celebration probably did not include Native Americans, as the celebration was meant partly to be in recognition of the colonists' recent victory over the "heathen natives," (see the proclamation). By then, it had become apparent to the settlers that the natives were a hindrance to their quest for more land, so the good will they shared at the first feast had long been lost.

A hundred years later, in October of 1777 all 13 colonies joined in a thanksgiving celebration. It also commemorated the patriotic victory over the British at Saratoga. But it was a one-time affair.

George Washington proclaimed a National Day of Thanksgiving in 1789, although some were opposed to it. There was discord among the colonies, many feeling the hardships of a few pilgrims did not warrant a national holiday. And later, President Thomas Jefferson opposed the idea of having a day of thanksgiving.


Thanksgiving was proclaimed by every president after Lincoln. The date was changed a couple of times, most recently by Franklin Roosevelt, who set it up one week to the next-to-last Thursday in order to create a longer Christmas shopping season. Public uproar against this decision caused the president to move Thanksgiving back to its original date two years later. And in 1941, Thanksgiving was finally sanctioned by Congress as a legal holiday, as the fourth Thursday in November.

Read more:
http://wilstar.com/holidays/thankstr.htm

Radon

Note: The diagram is a composite view of several mitigation options. The typical mitigation system usually has only one pipe penetration through the basement floor; the pipe may also be installed on the outside of the house.

How to Lower the Radon Levels in Your Home

Since there is no known safe level of radon, there can always be some risk. But the risk can be reduced by lowering the radon level in your home.

There are several proven methods to reduce radon in your home, but the one primarily used is a vent pipe system and fan, which pulls radon from beneath the house and vents it to the outside. This system, known as a soil suction radon reduction system, does not require major changes to your home. Sealing foundation cracks and other openings makes this kind of system more effective and cost-efficient. Similar systems can also be installed in houses with crawl spaces. Radon contractors can use other methods that may also work in your home. The right system depends on the design of your home and other factors.

Ways to reduce radon in your home are discussed in EPA's "Consumer's Guide to Radon Reduction." See radon publications for a copy.

The cost of reducing radon in your home depends on how your home was built and the extent of the radon problem. Most homes can be fixed for about the same cost as other common home repairs. The cost to fix can vary widely; consult with your state radon office or get one or more estimates from qualified mitigators. The cost is much less if a passive system was installed during construction.

Lowering high radon levels requires technical knowledge and special skills. You should use a contractor who is trained to fix radon problems. A qualified contractor can study the radon problem in your home and help you pick the right treatment method.

Check with your state radon office for names of qualified or state certified radon contractors in your area. You can also contact private radon proficiency programs for lists of privately certified radon professionals in your area. For more information on private radon proficiency programs, visit www.epa.gov/radon/radontest.html

Picking someone to fix your radon problem is much like choosing a contractor for other home repairs - you may want to get references and more than one estimate.

If you are considering fixing your home's radon problem yourself, you should first contact your state radon office for guidance and assistance (see www.epa.gov/radon/whereyoulive.html) .

Most homes can be fixed for about the same cost as other common home repairs.

You should also test your home again after it is fixed to be sure that radon levels have been reduced. Most soil suction radon reduction systems include a monitor that will indicate whether the system is operating properly. In addition, it's a good idea to retest your home every two years to be sure radon levels remain low.

Read more:
http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/citguide.html

Radon in Water

 

 

Radon in Water


If you've tested the air in your home and found a radon problem, and your water comes from a well, have your water tested.

There are two main sources for the radon in your home's indoor air, the soil and the water supply.

Compared to radon entering the home through water, radon entering your home through the soil is usually a much larger risk.

The radon in your water supply poses an inhalation risk and an ingestion risk.

Research has shown that your risk of lung cancer from breathing radon in air is much larger than your risk of stomach cancer from swallowing water with radon in it. Most of your risk from radon in water comes from radon released into the air when water is used for showering and other household purposes.

Radon in your home's water is not usually a problem when its source is surface water.

A radon in water problem is more likely when its source is ground water, e.g. a private well or a public water supply system that uses ground water. If you are concerned that radon may be entering your home through the water and your water comes from a public water supply, contact your water supplier.

If you've tested your private well and have a radon in water problem, it can be fixed.

Your home's water supply can be treated in two ways. Point-of-entry treatment can effectively remove radon from the water before it enters your home. Point-of-use treatment devices remove radon from your water at the tap, but only treat a small portion of the water you use and are not effective in reducing the risk from breathing radon released into the air from all water used in the home.

For more information, call EPA's Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791 or visit www.epa.gov/safewater/radon.html

 If your water comes from a private well, you can also contact your state radon office.

Read more:
http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/citguide.html

How to Test Your Home for Radon

How to Test Your Home

You can't see radon, but it's not hard to find out if you have a radon problem in your home. All you need to do is test for radon. Testing is easy and should only take a few minutes of your time.

The amount of radon in the air is measured in "picocuries per liter of air," or "pCi/L." There are many kinds of low-cost "do-it-yourself" radon test kits you can get through the mail and in hardware stores and other retail outlets. If you prefer, or if you are buying or selling a home, you can hire a qualified tester to do the testing for you. You should first contact your state radon office about obtaining a list of qualified testers. You can also contact a private radon proficiency program for lists of privately certified radon professionals serving your area. For links and information, visit www.epa.gov/radon/radontest.html.

There are Two General Ways to Test for Radon:

SHORT-TERM TESTING:

The quickest way to test is with short-term tests. Short-term tests remain in your home for two days to 90 days, depending on the device. "Charcoal canisters," "alpha track," "electret ion chamber," "continuous monitors," and "charcoal liquid scintillation" detectors are most commonly used for short-term testing. Because radon levels tend to vary from day to day and season to season, a short-term test is less likely than a long-term test to tell you your year-round average radon level. If you need results quickly, however, a short-term test followed by a second short-term test may be used to decide whether to fix your home.
How To Use a Test Kit:

Testing is easy and should only take a few minutes of your time.

Follow the instructions that come with your test kit. If you are doing a short-term test, close your windows and outside doors and keep them closed as much as possible during the test. Heating and air-conditioning system fans that re-circulate air may be operated. Do not operate fans or other machines which bring in air from outside. Fans that are part of a radon-reduction system or small exhaust fans operating only for short periods of time may run during the test. If you are doing a short-term test lasting just 2 or 3 days, be sure to close your windows and outside doors at least 12 hours before beginning the test, too. You should not conduct short-term tests lasting just 2 or 3 days during unusually severe storms or periods of unusually high winds. The test kit should be placed in the lowest lived-in level of the home (for example, the basement if it is frequently used, otherwise the first floor). It should be put in a room that is used regularly (like a living room, playroom, den or bedroom) but not your kitchen or bathroom. Place the kit at least 20 inches above the floor in a location where it won't be disturbed - away from drafts, high heat, high humidity, and exterior walls. Leave the kit in place for as long as the package says. Once you've finished the test, reseal the package and send it to the lab specified on the package right away for analysis. You should receive your test results within a few weeks.

LONG-TERM TESTING:

Long-term tests remain in your home for more than 90 days. "Alpha track" and "electret" detectors are commonly used for this type of testing. A long-term test will give you a reading that is more likely to tell you your home's year-round average radon level than a short-term test.

EPA Recommends the Following Testing Steps:


Step 1. Take a short-term test. If your result is 4 pCi/L or higher take a follow-up test (Step 2) to be sure.

Step 2. Follow up with either a long-term test or a second short-term test:
•For a better understanding of your year-round average radon level, take a long-term test.
•If you need results quickly, take a second short-term test.

The higher your initial short-term test result, the more certain you can be that you should take a short-term rather than a long-term follow up test. If your first short-term test result is more than twice EPA's 4 pCi/L action level, you should take a second short-term test immediately.

Step 3. If you followed up with a long-term test: Fix your home if your long-term test result is 4 pCi/L or more. If you followed up with a second short-term test: The higher your short-term results, the more certain you can be that you should fix your home. Consider fixing your home if the average of your first and second test is 4 pCi/L or higher. (see also Home Sales)

What Your Test Results Mean

Test your home now and save your results. If you find high radon levels, fix your home before you decide to sell it.

The average indoor radon level is estimated to be about 1.3 pCi/L, and about 0.4 pCi/L of radon is normally found in the outside air. The U.S. Congress has set a long-term goal that indoor radon levels be no more than outdoor levels. While this goal is not yet technologically achievable in all cases, most homes today can be reduced to 2 pCi/L or below.

Sometimes short-term tests are less definitive about whether or not your home is above 4 pCi/L. This can happen when your results are close to 4 pCi/L. For example, if the average of your two short-term test results is 4.1 pCi/L, there is about a 50% chance that your year-round average is somewhat below 4 pCi/L. However, EPA believes that any radon exposure carries some risk - no level of radon is safe. Even radon levels below 4 pCi/L pose some risk, and you can reduce your risk of lung cancer by lowering your radon level.

If your living patterns change and you begin occupying a lower level of your home (such as a basement) you should retest your home on that level.

Even if your test result is below 4 pCi/L, you may want to test again sometime in the future.

Today many homes are built to prevent radon from coming in. . The EPA recommends building new homes with radon-resistant features in high radon potential (Zone 1) areas. Even if built radon-resistant, every new home should be tested for radon after occupancy. If you have a test result of 4 pCi/L or more, you can have a qualified mitigator easily add a vent fan to an existing passive system for about $300 and further reduce the radon level in your home. For more information, refer to EPA's Map of Radon Zones and other useful EPA documents on radon-resistant new construction (see publications).

Read more:
http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/citguide.html

A Citizen's Guide to Radon

The Guide to Protecting Yourself and Your Family From Radon

EPA Recommends
•Test your home for radon — it's easy and inexpensive.
•Fix your home if your radon level is 4 picocuries per liter, or pCi/L, or higher.
•Radon levels less than 4 pCi/L still pose a risk, and in many cases may be reduced.


EPA estimates that radon causes thousands of cancer deaths in the U.S. each year.


* Radon is estimated to cause about 21,000 lung cancer deaths per year, according to EPA's 2003 Assessment of Risks from Radon in Homes (EPA 402-R-03-003). The numbers of deaths from other causes are taken from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2005-2006 National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Report and 2006 National Safety Council Reports.

Indoor Environments Division (6609J)
EPA 402-K-09-001, January 2009
How to Order Publications
You can order Indoor Air Quality publications from EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP)
P.O. Box 42419,
Cincinnati, OH 45242-0419
Website: www.epa.gov/nscep
Phone: 1-800-490-9198 (M-F from 9:30-5:30 eastern)
Fax: (301) 604-3408
E-mail: nscep@bps-lmit.com

Overview:  Radon is a cancer-causing, radioactive gas.

You can't see radon. And you can't smell it or taste it. But it may be a problem in your home.

Radon is estimated to cause many thousands of deaths each year. That's because when you breathe air containing radon, you can get lung cancer. In fact, the Surgeon General has warned that radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United States today. Only smoking causes more lung cancer deaths. If you smoke and your home has high radon levels, your risk of lung cancer is especially high.

Radon can be found all over the U.S.

Radon comes from the natural (radioactive) breakdown of uranium in soil, rock and water and gets into the air you breathe. Radon can be found all over the U.S. It can get into any type of building — homes, offices, and schools — and result in a high indoor radon level. But you and your family are most likely to get your greatest exposure at home, where you spend most of your time.

You should test for radon.

Testing is the only way to know if you and your family are at risk from radon. EPA and the Surgeon General recommend testing all homes below the third floor for radon. EPA also recommends testing in schools.

Testing is inexpensive and easy — it should only take a few minutes of your time. Millions of Americans have already tested their homes for radon (see How to Test Your Home).

You can fix a radon problem.

Radon reduction systems work and they are not too costly. Some radon reduction systems can reduce radon levels in your home by up to 99%. Even very high levels can be reduced to acceptable levels.

New homes can be built with radon-resistant features.

Radon-resistant construction techniques can be effective in preventing radon entry. When installed properly and completely, these simple and inexpensive techniques can help reduce indoor radon levels in homes. In addition, installing them at the time of construction makes it easier and less expensive to reduce radon levels further if these passive techniques don't reduce radon levels to below 4 pCi/L. Every new home should be tested after occupancy, even if it was built radon-resistant. If radon levels are still in excess of 4 pCi/L, the passive system should be activated by having a qualified mitigator install a vent fan. For more explanation of radon resistant construction techniques, refer to EPA publication, Building Radon Out: A Step-by-Step Guide on How to Build Radon-Resistant Homes (see www.epa.gov/radon/rrnc).

How Does Radon Get Into Your Home?

Any home may have a radon problem

Radon is a radioactive gas. It comes from the natural decay of uranium that is found in nearly all soils. It typically moves up through the ground to the air above and into your home through cracks and other holes in the foundation. Your home traps radon inside, where it can build up. Any home may have a radon problem. This means new and old homes, well-sealed and drafty homes, and homes with or without basements.

Radon from soil gas is the main cause of radon problems. Sometimes radon enters the home through well water (see "Radon in Water" below). In a small number of homes, the building materials can give off radon, too. However, building materials rarely cause radon problems by themselves.


RADON GETS IN THROUGH:

1. Cracks in solid floors
2. Construction joints
3. Cracks in walls
4. Gaps in suspended floors
5. Gaps around service pipes
6. Cavities inside walls
7. The water supply

Nearly 1 out of every 15 homes in the U.S. is estimated to have elevated radon levels. Elevated levels of radon gas have been found in homes in your state. Contact yourstate radon office for general information about radon in your area. While radon problems may be more common in some areas, any home may have a problem. The only way to know about your home is to test.
Radon can also be a problem in schools and workplaces. Ask yourstate radon office about radon problems in schools, daycare and childcare facilities, and workplaces in your area.

Top of page

How to Test Your Home

You can't see radon, but it's not hard to find out if you have a radon problem in your home. All you need to do is test for radon. Testing is easy and should only take a few minutes of your time.
The amount of radon in the air is measured in "picocuries per liter of air," or "pCi/L." There are many kinds of low-cost "do-it-yourself" radon test kits you can get through the mail and in hardware stores and other retail outlets. If you prefer, or if you are buying or selling a home, you can hire a qualified tester to do the testing for you. You should first contact your state radon office about obtaining a list of qualified testers. You can also contact a private radon proficiency program for lists of privately certified radon professionals serving your area. For links and information, visit www.epa.gov/radon/radontest.html.

Read more:
http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/citguide.html

 

Meeting:  LIFE, Inc. 

Day:        November 22 , 2011

Time:       6 PM

Place:        C & E's Restaurant,
                  2201 West Gretna Road. Gretna, VA 24557       

Speaker:  James Davis, Pittsylvania County  Emergency Services Director

Cancer, genetic defects are uranium’s legacy

 

An interview with Dr. David Maxwell
UPdate Fall 2008


Barb Harris from UPdate spoke with Dr. David Maxwell, a NS physician who believes uranium mining creates unacceptable health hazards for the population. Dr. Maxwell is a retired professor of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine at Dalhousie University, and spent many years as an emergency medicine physician at the QE 11 Hospital in Halifax, NS.
UPdate: What makes uranium mining different from other types of mining?
DM: The fundamental difference is the creation of very, very long lasting piles of radioactive material. Once you have released radon from the rock, it is going to be released continuously for tens of thousands of years, and you can’t stop it. There is no way to put the genie back into the bottle.

When it is locked in the rock, the radon remains in the rock and doesn’t do any harm. Once you have crushed the rock up into fine sand, the radon can escape into the atmosphere and will. There is no way to stop it.

Once its in the atmosphere, it drifts variable distances depending on how strong the wind is, and in the next three and a half days it turns into polonium 218, and these radioactive materials then end up in the environment. They are washed out of the atmosphere in the rain, they are taken up in the vegetation, and the animals that eat the vegetation accumulate these products.

UPdate: What are some of the health effects of exposure to these radioactive particles?

DM: Radioactivity damages cells, and there is no safe level of radiation. Radon is one of the breakdown products of uranium. Radon is a gas, you inhale it, you breathe it into your lungs. The daughter products of radon 222 are deposited in the lung, irradiating the surrounding cells. Lung cancer is what you get from radon. You can also get other cancers from the other radioactive materials which are present. The thorium, polonium 219 and radium clearly are dangerous to you.

The other thing that radiation exposure does is interfere with the gene pool. You cause chromosome breaks, which cause genetic defects, pregnancy losses, lowered fertility and all the things that happen when you disrupt people’s genetic makeup.

Pregnancy losses, lowered fertility and birth defects are all due to chromosome breaks, and the chromosome breaks are very well studied. There is a considerable body of literature documenting the chromosome abnormalities.

Uranium itself also has estrogenic effects. It is an endocrine disrupter. This is completely separate from its radioactivity. Uranium is the heaviest of the heavy metals essentially, so it has the same sorts of effects as any other of the heavy metals. If you ingest it, it causes heavy metal poisoning, Most of the heavy metals actually cause neurologic damage or endocrine damage. Lead is bad for you, arsenic is bad for you -- so is uranium.

UPdate: I’ve heard mining company representatives say we are already exposed to uranium from our environment so mining would not change anything. Is this true?

DM: The mining companies say, “Uranium is in the environment, and you are being continuously exposed to all these products” That is absolutely true. You are getting what is unavoidable. But when you start mining it and grinding up the rock and distributing this extra radioactivity into the environment, you increase the dose. So you can’t eliminate it, we are exposed to radiation on a continuing basis, and we live in a province that has radioactive material in the soil. But there is no justification for increasing it.

UPdate: Why do you, as a physician, feel uranium mining should be banned completely in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick?

DM: The simple approach is that all radiation is bad for you and there is a linear relationship. The more radiation you get, the more cancers you get, the more chromosome breaks you get, the more fertility issues and so on, and, uranium mining releases radioactivity, period. And it does so for tens of thousands of years.

The BC Med Assoc took position against uranium mining. In 1985, Doctors NS took a position against uranium mining. Uranium hasn’t changed in that time.

Basically, as Judge McCleave said, you get jobs for 10 years, but you are left with radioactive waste for 10,000 years. It doesn’t make any rational sense at all.

UPdate, Fall 2008, Environmental Health Association of Nova Scotia

You may also be interested in
Greenwashing Uranium: Nuclear energy is not green energy
www.environmentalhealth.ca/fall08greenwashing.html

Cancer, genetic defects are uranium’s legacy
www.environmentalhealth.ca/fall08legacy.html

Nine Facts You Need to Know about Uranium Mining
www.environmentalhealth.ca/fall08ninefacts.html

Radon: Invisible health threat in the home
www.environmentalhealth.ca/fall08radon.html

Please read all the article, it is great:
http://www.environmentalhealth.ca/fall08legacy.html

NAACP opposes uranium mining in Virginia

 

 

Posted at 10:11 AM ET, 10/31/2011
By Anita Kumar

The Virginia NAACP unanimously passed a resolution Oct 31 to support keeping a moratorium on uranium mining in the state.


“The risk uranium mining poses to our drinking water, air quality and local communities far outweighs the benefit,” said King Salim Khalifani, executive director Virginia State NAACP. “The magnitude of potential impacts on people of color and all the people in Virginia is too great to leave it to chance.”

Read more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/naacp-opposes-uranium-mining-in-virginia/2011/10/31/gIQAsXRGZM_blog.html

Researchers cite dangers of uranium

Star-Tribune, Chatham,Virginia, Wed., November 9, 2011
By JONATHAN PARKER

Star-Tribune Staff Writer

DANVILLE — Uranium mining poses a serious risk to Pittsylvania County’s watershed, according to two researchers at the Roanoke River Basin Association’s meeting Saturday.

Dr. Robert Moran and William “Paul” Robinson said mining at the Coles Hill deposit near Chatham
would disrupt the environment and potentially harm nearby streams and reservoirs.

“The range of chemicals associated with the operation have hazardous problems,” Robinson
said. “There are a lot of risks.”

Virginia Uranium Inc. hopes to mine the deposit

Moran and Robinson spent two hours discussing the potential impact of uranium mining to 30
people during the association’s meeting at the Institute for Advanced Learning and Research in
Danville.

Moran and Robinson were also the keynote speakers for “Uranium Mining and Our Water,” a
program sponsored by the League of Individuals for the Environment Inc. at White Grove Outreach
Center in Dry Fork on Saturday.

Moran has more than 39 years of domestic and international experience in conducting and managing water quality, geochemical and hydrogeologic work for private investors, industrial clients, tribal and citizens groups, law firms, and governmental agencies.

A Harrisonburg native, Robinson is the research director at Southwest Research and Information
Center in Albuquerque, N.M., an organization working to promote the health of people and communities, protect natural resources, ensure citizen participation, and secure environmental
and social justice.

‘Nothing more valuable than water’ Robinson said protecting waterways is a paramount concern because uranium mining will result in “regular daily releases” of water back into the environment.

“Even if they re-circulate it, the water isn’t going to evaporate because this is Virginia,” Robinson said
of the state’s mild climate.

“There will be daily releases into the watershed with some of the heavy levels that will be regulated only up to the standard. It’s not clean; it just meets the standard.”

Robinson said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which monitors water quality, would allow
water discharges.

“There is nothing more valuable than water even if it doesn’t have a price,” Robinson said. “There will
be water discharges for this mine.”

Moran said Marline’s research indicates the site contains uranium, radon, arsenic, chromium, admium,
copper, lead, mercury, strontium, and other elements.

He said scientists are unsure of the “longtime toxicity” of some elements because studies are xpensive.

“There is no incentive for a potential company to do the studies to clarify this,” Moran said.

Mining also utilizes “massive quantities” of fuels, oils, greases, and antifreeze, Moran said.

“All of these are toxic when released into the environment,” said Moran, who was part of the team
involved in exploring and developing the Coles Hill site in the early 1980s.

Moran said mining companies often mix fuel oil with nitrate and ammonia for blasting.

“What it does after you blast is it leaves a residue on the walls of the pit,” Moran said.

Mining companies also use herbicides, pesticides, and road de-icing chemicals, Moran said.

“This is chemical mining — all kinds of stuff is going to go out into the environment,” he said.

According to Marline’s research, an estimated 135 million gallons of water per year could run through the mine, Moran said, adding 250 private wells are within several miles of the site.

“When groundwater and rainwater comes down the walls of the pit, it starts reacting with it,” Moran
said. “What are you going to do with that water now that it’s contaminated? You can’t put it back into the streams.”


Robinson said Virginia Uranium “overstates the mineable resources available” by over 50 percent.

The uranium company believes it will mine 119 million pounds, but Robinson estimates 52 million pounds will be recovered.

“I would encourage you all to look at the reports, not just the press releases,” Robinson said.

Moran said “contaminants” would fill the bottoms of reservoirs. “So the concerns are real,” he said.

At current production levels, the United States has enough uranium to last 100 years, Robinson said.

Robinson said jobs depend on the market’s ability to “sustain production.”

“They can only produce if it’s profitable,” Robinson said, adding the price of uranium has dropped over the last few years.

Read more at: 
Star-Tribune, Chatham,Virginia,

Press Release

PRESS RELEASE

For Immediate Release: November 17, 2011

Contact: Olga Kolotushkina, 202-641-7835, oolukas@yahoo.com
Dr. Robert Moran, 303-526-1405, 303-358-8720

Proposed Uranium Project: Degradation of Water Quality and Increased Water Competition, Report Finds

Danville, VA – Today, the Roanoke River Basin Association (RRBA) released a site-specific report finding that the proposed uranium mining and milling project at Coles Hill in Pittsylvania County , VA would cause long-term, chronic degradation of water quality and increase water competition in the region. The report was prepared by Dr. Robert Moran, who has more than thirty-nine years of domestic and international experience in conducting and managing water quality, geochemical and hydrogeologic work for private investors, industrial clients, tribal and citizens groups, NGO’s, law firms, and governmental agencies at all levels. In the early 1980s, Dr. Moran was on the team conducting environmental studies on water quality and hydrogeology for Marline Uranium and Union Carbide.

Coles Hill that is located in the Roanoke River Basin watershed would host the first uranium mine and mill on the East Coast if the Virginia General Assembly lifts the existing ban on uranium mining in the Commonwealth. All of the publicly-available technical data and information for the Coles Hill proposed operations were collected by the mining companies or by consultants / contractors paid by these companies. Most of the publicly-available opinions on future impacts that might result from such operations also come from the companies or their paid contractors. This report is one of the few reports on potential impacts of proposed uranium mining in Virginia that has not been funded by the industry.

“Various aspects of uranium mining are expected to be addressed in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report due on December 1, 2011. However, the statement of task for the NAS panel explicitly excludes site-specific assessments, which prompted the RRBA to commission this report to assess risks and challenges associated with on-site water and waste management during the operations and post-closure.,” said Andrew Lester, executive director of RRBA.

“Unfortunately, the company seeking to lift the existing ban has so far failed to present any sort of detailed project proposal, in writing. The verbally-described plans have changed constantly, depending on the audience. Hence, we felt that an independent evaluation of the proposed project is needed,” explained Olga Kolotushkina, RRBA advisor.

Dr. Moran was tasked with evaluating site and project-specific risks and challenges the proposed uranium mining and milling project will pose for the region. The report identifies waste rock, uranium mill tailings, mine dewatering, and the use of explosives as potential sources of significant water contamination.

The report finds that the project as proposed may generate at least 28 million tons of solid uranium mill tailings and roughly the same amount of liquid waste. The solid wastes would remain on site forever, requiring maintenance forever. Uranium mill tailings would contain radionuclides, heavy metals and other toxic elements. Undiluted tailings liquids may contain 1160 to 1460 times the existing Safe Drinking Water Act standard for uranium.

The report also finds a potentially significant impact on the water availability in the region. According to the report findings, as proposed, the Coles Hill project would require over 5 billion gallons of water. During the start-up period, the project would use at least 525.6 million gallons per year. The company’s documents have failed to identify the sources of this water.

The report also finds a potentially significant impact on groundwater. “Seepage of acidic water and other chemicals should be the main concern,” warns Dr. Moran. The report also cautions that the confirmed presence of sulfides in the Coles Hill rock raises the possibility that long-term, active water treatment may be required, in perpetuity.

“Most U.S. uranium mining sites that I visited are located in desert or semi-desert, sparsely-populated regions. The Coles Hill site is wet, with annual precipitation equal to about 42 inches. Most importantly, within a radius of 2 to 3 miles, Coles Hill has roughly 250 private wells, at least one dairy and numerous hay / forage fields, which are liable to be impacted,” said Dr. Moran.

“The main takeaway from this report for the communities is that all such large-scale uranium projects involve trade-offs, usually some short-term jobs, etc. in exchange for long-term impacts (environmental, socioeconomic, etc.), most of which are paid by future generations. Thus, many of the long-term costswill be subsidized by the public,” said Dr. Moran.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Roanoke River Basin Association’s mission is to promote development, use, preservation and enhancement of the resources of the Basin in the best interests of present and future generations of Basin residents. RRBA believes that basin resource conservation can co-exist with managed economic growth. Contact: Andrew Lester, Executive Director, Roanoke River Basin Association, P.O. Box 10548 , Danville , VA 24543 . Website: www.rrba.org

White House Environmental Advisor Tours Charlottesville School

Posted: Nov 09, 2011 5:18 PM EST Updated: Nov 09, 2011 5:37 PM EST

President Obama's environmental advisor stopped by a Charlottesville school Wednesday. Nancy Sutley toured Johnson Elementary with the school's principal and other educators.

Sutley learned about how the Energy Star certified school is saving more than $8,000 a year through its lighting and water conservation programs.

"Save money for the school that means you can hire more teachers or do other things with the money besides spending it on energy costs," Sutley said.

Read more:
http://www.nbc29.com/story/16001607/white-house-environmental-advisor-tours-charlottesville-school

Governing bodies adopt joint resolution on uranium mining

Written by Paula I. Bryant

07:46 am 10/19/11

In a show of unity, the Halifax County Board of Supervisors, Halifax Town Council and South Boston Town Council adopted a very simple resolution Monday night jointly stating they “resolve to keep the ban on uranium mining until it can be proven that uranium mining can be done safely.” The action came during the joint meeting of the three governing bodies who each unanimously supported Virginia Beach’s position to oppose lifting the moratorium on uranium mining until it can be demonstrated that downstream waters will be protected.

Virginia Uranium Inc. has proposed a uranium mining and milling operation at the Coles Hill deposit near Sheva in Pittsylvania County, and the Virginia General Assembly is set to debate lifting the 30-year moratorium in its upcoming session.

In 1982, Virginia established a ban on uranium mining after geologists discovered deposits of the radioactive metal throughout the state.

At the heart of opponents’ concerns are the on-site storage of “tailings,” the remnants of uranium mining, which can be washed downstream in the event of a mill tailing confinement cell failure due to direct impact on mining facilities by a catastrophic storm event, according to a study for the Banister River Watershed.

Adoption of the resolution followed lengthy discussion and a 25-minute PowerPoint presentation on Virginia Beach’s uranium mining impact study.


Read more:
http://www.gazettevirginian.com/index.php/news/34-news/4218-governing-bodies-adopt-joint-resolution-on-uranium-mining

New Meeting: Coal and Energy Commission Uranium Mining Subcommittee

Legislative Interim Meeting Notice

Coal and Energy Commission Uranium Mining Subcommittee

*New Meeting*

Subject:   MEETING NOTICE

Meeting Date: Monday, December 12, 2011

End Date: Monday, December 12, 2011

Meeting Time: 02:00 PM

Location:   House Room D, General Assembly Building

Address: 901 East Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219

Public Parking: Metered public parking spaces (2 hours) on streets throughout the downtown area.

Pay parking decks are nearby on 8th and Grace Street (St. Paul’s Episcopal Church) , and 7th and

Marshall Streets.

Contact: Martin G, Farber, Division of Legislative Services (804) 786-3591

Bill Owen, House Committee Operations (804) 698-1540

Information:   The Uranium Mining Subcommittee of the Coal and Energy Committee will meet at 2:00pm in House Room D on Monday December 12, 2011.

Special Sub Meetings: *Additional study information including Membership may be found on the website for the Coal and Energy

Read more:

http://dela.state.va.us/Dela/ComOpsStudy.nsf/FB72CC61CD3B2450852577990056CC19/84C803DB4C5A0C1D8525792C004D1B5E?OpenDocument

Uranium a divisive social issue, speakers say

By: Tara Bozick
Published: November 03, 2011

RICHMOND --
What should Virginia do when it comes to uranium mining?

That was the topic of the Garden Club of Virginia’s timely forum Thursday as the General Assembly is expected to consider lifting a 29-year-old uranium mining moratorium early next year.

Speakers noted uranium is a divisive social issue, and Department of Environmental Quality Deputy Director Richard Weeks foresees a “very emotional” legislative session.

Uranium isn’t just a Pittsylvania County concern, as Virginia Uranium Inc. would like to tap a 119-million-pound deposit there, but is a statewide issue, environmentalists said, citing impacts beyond the region and the possibility for future uranium exploration and mining in other parts of the state.

And, is it just the 140 state elected representatives who are going to decide? While several of the forum’s panel speakers differed on various aspects of uranium mining, many agreed that Virginia residents need to be involved and give input to shape the state’s uranium regulatory framework, if such work begins.

Peyton Wells, chair of the Garden Club’s 53rd Conservation Forum, encouraged more than 230 attendees to take what they learned and talk with their legislators.

Informed public involvement is why Cale Jaffe, senior attorney with Southern Environmental Law Center, and Paul Robinson, research director at Southwest Research and Information Center in New Mexico, would like for residents to have time to digest information from the highly anticipated National Academy of Sciences study and other studies on uranium mining in Virginia due in December.

Robinson said he wants legislators to listen to communities and residents rather than lobbyists.

http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2011/nov/03/uranium-divisive-social-issue-speakers-say-ar-1433711/#fbcomments

Danville company partners with Lynchburg College for eco-friendly project

By: Liz Barry
Published: October 23, 2011


This semester, Lynchburg College plans to build the first of eight energy-efficient cabins at the Claytor Nature Study Center in Bedford County, kicking off a $2.2 million project to build a small but sustainable “Eco-Village.”

The Eco-Village is designed to be off the grid, with the cabins using the sun for heat, rain for water needs and a nearby wetland for wastewater treatment. The cabins will provide long-term housing for researchers and student interns, along with bunks for weekend groups.

The project kicked off Tuesday evening with a groundbreaking ceremony near the Eco-Village’s future site at the college’s 470-acre nature preserve near the Blue Ridge Mountains.

For the first cabin, LC has teamed up with SIPS of America, a Danville-based company that builds energy-efficient homes using the “Structured Insulated Panel System.” The company builds airtight structures that guarantee a 50 percent energy savings, said SIPS owner Jimmy Farlow.

The 700-square-foot cabin will feature one bedroom, a loft, a small kitchen and screened porch. The trees used in construction will come from within a 75-mile radius of Halifax, Farlow said.

“We use 100 percent of the trees, including the limbs and branches that are normally discarded,” Farlow said.

“With this groundbreaking, Lynchburg College is making its latest statement that underlies its commitment to sustainability,” said LC president Ken Garren during remarks at the ceremony.

Read more:
http://www2.godanriver.com/business/2011/oct/23/danville-company-partners-lynchburg-college-eco-fr-ar-1400480/

Andrew Lester: Problems of uranium mining

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-4vQj-I2xc

Great info on Uranium Mining:

Health Impacts of Uranium Mining

Douglas Brugge, Tufts University


http://vcnva.org/anx/ass/library/52/bruggeuraniumhealtheffects.pdf

The Canadian Experience with Uranium

Gordon Edwards, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility


http://vcnva.org/anx/ass/library/52/edwardsuraniumhistoryandcanadianmining.pdf

Global Overview and the Virginia Situation

Paul Robinson, Southwest Research & Information Center “Global Overview and the Virginia Situation”

• Presentation: Uranium Markets and Techniques
• Video: The History of Uranium Mining
• Video: The Cost of Uranium Mining
• Video: Water Quality and Uranium Mining
• Video: Renewable vs. Nuclear Energy
• Video: Ways to get involved and learn more

• Read more and see more at:

http://vcnva.org/anx/index.cfm/1,370,1451,0,html/Global-Overview-and-the-Virginia-Situation

A Greener Thanksgiving

Here's Everything You Need for an Earth-Friendly — and Delicious — Thanksgiving Meal.

Time to give thanks ... and to celebrate with the delicious harvest of the local farmers and food artisans who bring to market the freshest produce, the most sustainably and compassionately-raised livestock, gorgeous hand-made breads and those delicious artisanal cheeses, preserves, and more.

When you shop locally for your Thanksgiving feast, you're celebrating the glory of real foods — organic and heirloom vegetables, whole grains, fresh seafood — most of which are raised without many hormones and pesticides. And because these foods are local, you reduce the number of miles between your plate and the farm, which is important to those of us concerned about the overuse of fossil fuels.


Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/healthy-eating/eat-local-thanksgiving#ixzz1beCiNGM6

Proposed Uranium Mining in Virginia

In the 1980s, uranium leases were filed on thousands of acres of land in Virginia including Fauquier, Orange, Culpeper, and Madison Counties, stretching along the Piedmont to Pittsylvania in Southside Virginia.

• At that time, the Commonwealth undertook an extensive study of uranium mining. It was costly, time consuming, and divisive. When it was over, the General Assembly and Governor decided it was in the best interests of the people to maintain a moratorium on uranium mining in Virginia.

A new corporation, Virginia Uranium, Inc., is seeking to lift the moratorium.
Although the primary focus on the uranium debate has been on the Coles Hill sitein Pittsylvania County, most of Virginia's population would be impacted by uranium mining, especially areas downstream or downwind of mining sites.

Next Section: Read about the uranium mining and milling process.

In Depth Resources:

Read more background information about uranium mining from 1980s historical documents.

• Uranium mining and milling, a primer. 1979
• Uranium- Search splits Orange, Spurs Study. Times-Dispatch. 1981
• Uranium: A Virginia Concern. T.G. Scott Jr & Velma Smith. 1982
• Uranium in Virginia: A Statewide Concern. 1984
• PEC Policy Standard #420- Uranium. 1984
• Uranium Safety Decision Imminent. PEC News Reporter. 1984
• Uranium Study Nears Deadline. Environmental Policy Institute. 1984
• Uranium Production: Safe for Virginia? 1985
• Editing Uranium. George Bowles. Date unknown

Click here to review above:

http://pecva.org/anx/index.cfm/1,391,1319,0,html/Proposed-Uranium-Mining-in-Virginia

Uranium focus of lecture

By PAUL COLLINS - Bulletin Staff Writer

A hydrogeologist from Colorado said Monday night that the uranium mining and milling industry has a history of contaminating water resources.

Robert E. Moran added that he is not aware of modern technology in that industry having a track record of adequately protecting water resources today.

Moran gave a talk and answered questions in a program that lasted more than an hour at the Virginia Museum of Natural History. Nearly 50 people attended the talk, titled “Uranium Mining: What You Need to Know.” The Dan River Basin Association, an environmental group, sponsored it.

Moran said he was not saying that what has happened historically in the uranium mining and milling industry would happen under Virginia Uranium Inc.’s proposal to mine and mill uranium at Coles Hill in Pittsylvania County. He said there are many unknowns about the proposed operation, the company should make more information public, and the public should be asking questions.

“You need to think about long term, not short term. It’s your kids and your grandkids that will have to deal with this,” Moran said of the potential consequences of uranium mining and milling.


Virginia has had a moratorium on uranium mining since 1982, when the General Assembly first took up the debate over allowing uranium mining in the state, the AP reported. The National Academies of Science is expected to release a study in December on the impact of uranium mining statewide. While it will not recommend whether Virginia should end the ban, the General Assembly is expected to rely heavily on the report’s contents in deciding whether to take up the issue in 2012, the AP reported.

Moran has more than 39 years of domestic and international experience in conducting and managing water quality, geochemical and hydrogeologic work for private investors, industrial clients, tribal and citizens groups, nongovernmental organizations, law firms and governmental agencies, a flier for the meeting says.

Moran told the audience he was limiting his observations on environmental damage to water quality, not environmental damage caused by contaminated waste being blown by wind.

Among the points he made about the uranium mining and milling industry were:

• Most operations that he is aware of are in drier, more sparsely populated areas.

• Governments generally do not require large enough bonds of mining and milling companies to cover the perpetual costs of the site, including environmental cleanup and maintaining the site forever. He said those costs can be “phenomenal.”

After an operation closes, the ownership of the site is given to the federal government.

• Governments generally inadequately enforce regulations on the industry intended to protect the public.

• The industry goes through economic boom and bust cycles. A company may plan to operate a number of decades but close after only a few years if the price of uranium plummets.

• There always are environmental impacts from mining and milling, and it may be many years before the impacts are known. That doesn’t mean necessarily that a proposed operation should be rejected, but that the “tradeoffs” should be weighed.

• He is not aware of any uranium Super Fund hazardous waste site in which a contaminated groundwater supply was totally cleaned up.

Among the points he made about Virginia Uranium’s proposal were:

• Not much specific information has been released.

• Large amounts of water probably would be used, and the source of the water has not been made public. The wastewater probably would contain a number of contaminants.

• A couple hundred private wells are located relatively near the site.

Moran made some observations based on extensive research that was done on the site in the 1980s, when Marline Uranium and Union Carbide were developing the project.

Read more:
http://www.martinsvillebulletin.com/article.cfm?ID=30865