League of Individuals for the Environment, Inc.

Point/Counterpoint: Diverse coalition seeks to keep ban in place

2012-01-29T04:44:00.002-05:00

By Cale Jaffe

Jaffe is a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center and a lecturer at the University of Virginia School of Law, where he teaches a course on Environmental Law and Federalism.

For 30 years, Virginia has banned uranium mining. Now, one company, Virginia Uranium Inc., wants to repeal that ban with its eye on a site near Danville.

The company advertises its project as "Fuel for America," although it concedes only 0.06 percent of the deposit could be milled into yellowcake. The remainder is waste — 58billion pounds of it, according to the company's estimate — containing radioactive materials that we would have to manage in perpetuity.

Fundamentally, this is not an energy issue. (At least, 99.94 percent of it isn't.) It's a question of waste management. Does Virginia want to be the uranium-waste disposal capital of the East Coast?

Conservation groups are finding common cause under the umbrella of the Keep The Ban Coalition. We maintain that for three decades our state has been well-served by the law that prohibits uranium mining.

And we're encouraged to see a diverse array of organizations outside of the conservation community that share our perspective. The Virginia Municipal League and Virginia NAACP oppose any repeal of the ban in 2012. The Virginia Farm Bureau and the Garden Club of Virginia are imploring legislators to adopt a go-slow approach.

What is more, dozens of localities in Virginia and North Carolina have adopted resolutions in support of the ban. These include communities that supposedly would benefit from uranium waste impoundments. Patrick, Halifax and Mecklenburg counties have passed measures. Mecklenburg cites threats to Kerr Lake and Lake Gaston — resources it says "have been the driving force" behind growth in the region.

Read more:
http://www.roanoke.com/editorial/counterpoint/wb/303432

Uranium: Point/Counterpoint

2012-01-28T04:24:00.010-05:00

2012.01.16

11:40 Christina Nuckols: Good morning. Thanks for joining us for this week's Point/Counterpoint discussion. Today's topic is, "Should Virginia lift its moratorium on uranium mining?" Our guests today are Robert Bodnar of Virginia Tech and Cale Jaffe of the Southern Environmental Law Center. We'll get started at noon.

Monday January 16, 2012 11:40 Christina Nuckols

11:57 Robert Bodnar: Not if one reads the newspapers and sees the concern that the U.S., Europe and Israel have over Iran's nuclear program.

Monday January 16, 2012 11:57 Robert Bodnar
11:58 Cale Jaffe: I think the question is a good one. No one is contending that our uranium resources are coming from Iran and North Korea. It's a bit of a bait and switch.

Monday January 16, 2012 11:58 Cale Jaffe
11:59 Cale Jaffe: I'd add that according to the U.S. Department of Energy, the two countries with the most uranium resources in the world are Canada and Australia -- two allies of the United States.

Monday January 16, 2012 11:59 Cale Jaffe
12:00 [Comment From KatarinaKatarina: ]
Isn't Professor Bodnar doing a bit of fearmongering raising the nuclear weapons issue? Besides, whether for nuclear power plants or for weapons, can't the US get enough Uranium from its allies like Canada and australia?

Monday January 16, 2012 12:00 Katarina
12:01 [Comment From KatarinaKatarina: ]
What's the story about uranium mining in areas with high precipitation, low evaporation? Has uranium mining occurred in places like Virginia in the US? And doesn't the processing of the uranium at the same site as the mining increase the chances of contaminated runoff from mining or milling in a catastrophic storm?

Monday January 16, 2012 12:01 Katarina
12:02 Cale Jaffe: It looks like we answered Katrina's first question before it was asked. Sorry about that! We're slowly getting the hang of this online discussion...

Monday January 16, 2012 12:02 Cale Jaffe
12:03 Robert Bodnar: I am not suggesting that Australia and Canada are likely to become hostile to the U.S in the near future, but I would remind readers that Venezuela was a strong ally of the U.S. just a few short years ago, but Hugo Chavez has changed that. The U.S. should always be prepared to be self-sufficient in all strategic resources.

Monday January 16, 2012 12:03 Robert Bodnar
12:03 [Comment From KatarinaKatarina: ]
But aren't we trying to disarm Iran not arm the US with nuclear weapons? Haven't we and our allies tried to de-escalate nuclear arms race by trying to stop Korea and Iran from developing nuclear weapons rather than trying to re-arm ourselves?

Monday January 16, 2012 12:03 Katarina
12:03 [Comment From Rupert CutlerRupert Cutler: ]
Dr. John Cairns believes eastern Virginia receives too much rainfall to be a safe place to store radioactive tailings.

Monday January 16, 2012 12:03 Rupert r
12:04 [Comment From BobBob: ]
I never hear the users of nuclear fuel complain that the supply is insufficient, just the suppliers. Why is that?

Monday January 16, 2012 12:04 Bob
12:04 Robert Bodnar: Bob - could you please clarify - not sure what you are asking.

Monday January 16, 2012 12:04 Robert Bodnar
12:05 [Comment From KatarinaKatarina: ]
I echo Dr. Cutler's question

Monday January 16, 2012 12:05 Katarina
12:05 Cale Jaffe: Wow, a lot of good questions coming in fast. On the water issue, I'd point out that Virginia has been impacted by 78 hurricanes over the last century. Hurricane Camille dumped 31 inches on Nelson County. We need to be prepared to handle those kinds of events.

Monday January 16, 2012 12:05 Cale Jaffe
12:06 [Comment From KatarinaKatarina: ]
What does the National Academy report say about catastrophic events and uranium mining?

Monday January 16, 2012 12:06 Katarina
12:06 Robert Bodnar: With below surface tailings storage, the hurricane issue becomes moot, as outlined in the NAS study

Monday January 16, 2012 12:06 Robert Bodnar
12:07 Robert Bodnar: The National Academy of Sciences study even addressed the most often cited concern expressed by mining opponents – the potential risk of a storm-induced release of tailings into downstream Lake Gaston: “Over the past few decades, significant improvements have been made to tailings management practices to isolate mine waste from the environment… Full below-grade disposal of mill tailings is an option that has been developed specifically to eliminate concerns over the release of tailings due to catastrophic failure of a construction retaining berm or tailings dam.”

Monday January 16, 2012 12:07 Robert Bodnar
12:07 Cale Jaffe: Re: Bob's question on nuclear fuel supply, there was a NY Times report that quoted an industry consultant as saying that "We've got 100 years of high-enriched uranium in storage."

Monday January 16, 2012 12:07 Cale Jaffe
12:07 [Comment From KatarinaKatarina: ]
does this mean that there will be no spill -- how can all the tailings be underground?

Monday January 16, 2012 12:07 Katarina
12:07 [Comment From Brian LindholmBrian Lindholm: ]
Can somebody explain to my why uranium mining tailings are considered "dangerously radioactive"? If you pull mildly radioactive ore-bearing deposits out of the ground, remove the uranium, and then put it back in the ground, is it not LESS radioactive?

Monday January 16, 2012 12:07 Brian
12:07 [Comment From BobBob: ]
Isn't it probable that if we were running out of fuel for nuclear power plants, for example, that the power companies would be showing some concern?

Monday January 16, 2012 12:07 Bob
12:07 [Comment From Concerned citizenConcerned citizen: ]
Does uranium mining and waste disposal pose a threat to our drinking water in Virginia?

Monday January 16, 2012 12:07 Concerned citizen
12:08 [Comment From Rupert CutlerRupert Cutler: ]
Given that most of the rock mined will become waste and that some kind of cement-like binder will be mixed with it to stabilize it, there may be a larger volume of radioactive waste to dispose of than there will be room for underground.

Monday January 16, 2012 12:08 Rupert
12:08 Robert Bodnar: Brian - yes, most of the uranium will be removed during the mining/milling process.

Monday January 16, 2012 12:08 Robert Bodnar
12:08 Cale Jaffe: I don't think the hurricane issue becomes moot. Far from it. Paul Locke, chair of the NAS committee, was very careful to say that "best practices" could mitigate some of the risks, not all of the risks. And the key word there is "mitigate," not "eliminate."

Monday January 16, 2012 12:08 Cale Jaffe
12:09 Cale Jaffe: Re: Brian's question on the radioactivity of the waste, studies confirm that the waste retains about 85% of its original radioactivity. There's a lot of radium and thorium that is not removed.

Read more:
http://blogs.roanoke.com/roundtable/?altcast_code=1a5e7091cf

Keep Ban on Uranium Mining in Virginia

2012-01-27T04:50:00.019-05:00

2012 January 9

Virginia Interfaith Power & Light is engaging Virginia faith communities in the fight to keep the ban on uranium mining in Virginia.

Virginia Uranium, Inc, a Canadian-owned company, is trying to repeal a nearly 30-year statewide ban on the mining of uranium, the milling of yellowcake, and the disposal of radioactive waste in Virginia.

A proposed mine and mill in Pittsylvania County would generate over 28 million tons of mill tailings waste. This type of waste has been linked to increases in leukemia, kidney disease, and other severe health problems.

Learn more here: http://vipl.org/PublicPolicy/UraniumMiningBan/tabid/892/Default.aspx

You’re invited to sign a petition to “Keep the Ban,” and share the link with your congregation: http://keeptheban.org/?page_id=237

To learn more about how your Virginia congregation can help, including collecting “Keep the Ban” postcards,
email my colleague
Trieste at Virginia Interfaith Power & Light: trieste@virginiainterfaithcenter.orghttp://uusj.net/wp/?p=4345

Uranium mining opponents present `yellowcake’ to legislators

2012-01-26T12:57:00.008-05:00

Opponents of a plan by Virginia Uranium Inc. to mine the radioactive material in Pittsylvania County are in Richmond today to ask legislators to keep a moratorium on mining–in place since 1982–in effect.

A coalition of conservation groups were making the point by presenting lawmakers with “yellowcake” cupcakes with the message: “”These yellow cakes are not harmful–but making uranium yellowcake and leaving behind radioactive waste in Virginia is. Protect our health, our heritage and our future.

Keep the Ban on Uranium Mining in Virginia.”

Some Southside business representatives and Republican legislators also said more study is needed. See Chelyen Davis’ story here. Among the groups making the pitch today are the Virginia Conservation Network and the Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club. Virginia Uranium contends mining and milling can be done safely, while protecting the environment.

VCN director Nathan Lott says the network “works on a broad range of environmental issues all across the state, but never have I seen such an issue galvanize people like the prospect of uranium mining. Black and white, urban and rural, Republican and Democrat–Virginians agree that mining is just too risky.”

By Rusty Dennen on January 23rd, 2012 12:55 pm

http://blogs.fredericksburg.com/waterearthsky/2012/01/23/uranium-mining-opponents-present-yellowcake-to-legislators/

Virginia Deserves the Same Protections as the Grand Canyon

2012-01-26T07:11:00.002-05:00

Virginia Deserves the Same Protections as the Grand Canyon

For Immediate Release

Monday, January 9, 2012

We are overjoyed at the Secretary’s decision to protect our national treasure from toxic mining and hope his decision will serve as an example for Virginia legislators,” remarked Caroline Kory state associate with Environment Virginia. “We thank the administration for standing with the American people and defending the canyon from toxic mining pollution. Now, we're calling on Virginia's General Assembly to recognize the dangers of uranium mining and defend Virginians from toxic pollution.”

Secretary Salazar’s decision to protect the canyon came after more than 2 years of environmental analysis and receiving nearly 300,000 public comments from the American people, environmental and conservation groups, the outdoor recreation industry, mayors and tribal leaders, Secretary Salazar withdrew more than 1 million acres of land around the canyon from new mining claims for the next twenty years.

Uranium mining in the United States has an abysmal track-record. In Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Utah, uranium mining has had undeniable health impacts on miners and nearby residents, including cancer, anemia and birth defects. Even the Grand Canyon itself bears the scars of uranium mining. Radioactive waste has poisoned streams and soil in and around the canyon, while abandoned and active mines are scars on the Arizona landscape. (For more information on the track record of Uranium mining across the West see Environment Virginia's report Grand Canyon at Risk: Uranium Mining Doesn’t Belong Near Our National Treasures.)

Uranium mining has a toxic legacy, said Kory. “We applaud the administration for protecting a national landmark and the source of drinking water for millions from this threat. The General Assembly must ensure the same protections remain in place for Virginia.”

While uranium mining has scarred vast swaths of the American West, lands east of the Mississippi have thus far been protected from toxic drilling's destructive legacy.

Recent studies by the National Academies of Sciences, among others, have raised serious questions about mining uranium in Virginia-- particularly because of the huge risks of mining uranium in a wet climate.

Kory added, “Uranium mining has already left a toxic legacy across the West—every uranium mine ever opened has required some degree of toxic waste clean up.

It doesn’t belong near the Grand Canyon and it certainly doesn’t belong here in Virginia.”

http://environmentvirginia.org/news/vae/virginia-deserves-same-protections-grand-canyon

2012-01-25T04:48:00.004-05:00

UraniumFree Virginia

Friends of the New River and Friends of the Rappahannock (River) have both joined the growing and diverse coalition of organizations opposed to uranium mining.

Citizens pack General Assembly offices to voice opposition to uranium mining

2012-01-24T12:38:00.001-05:00

Uranium mining opponents return to Richmond

WDBJ7 - ‎1 hour ago‎

RICHMOND, Va. — Late last week, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell asked state lawmakers to keep the moratorium on uranium mining in place for at least another year. That didn't stop opponents of uranium mining from making another trip to Richmond on ...

Citizens pack General Assembly offices to voice opposition to uranium mining

Chatham Star Tribune - ‎20 hours ago‎

RICHMOND - Citizens from across the state converged in the Capitol Monday to call on their elected representatives in the General Assembly to keep Virginia's 30-year ban on uranium mining. Following significant warnings from the National Academy of ...

Uranium mining opponents present `yellowcake' to legislators

Fredericksburg.com (blog) - ‎Jan 23, 2012‎

Opponents of a plan by Virginia Uranium Inc. to mine the radioactive material in Pittsylvania County are in Richmond today to ask legislators to keep a moratorium on mining–in place since 1982–in effect. A coalition of conservation groups were making ...

Read all the reports:

https://news.google.com/news/story?hl=en&sugexp=pfwl&tok=MWNE7j1uexOiMivhOguURw&cp=43&gs_id=2&xhr=t&q=Uranium+mining+opponents+return+to+Richmond&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&biw=1280&bih=551&wrapid=tljp132742582390700&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dW4GY4Dz3EwjsnMsmr18MCyshw1NM&ei=IukeT7-GM6iI2gXbtZWBDw&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CC8QqgIwAA

Colorado uranium workers may get compensation

2012-01-24T06:43:00.005-05:00

Posted: Jan 11, 2012 12:14 PM EST Updated: Jan 11, 2012 12:15 PM EST

GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. (AP) - The U.S. Department of Labor says people who worked at uranium mills in Grand Junction, Maybell, Nucla, Naturita, Rifle, Slick Rock and 10 other locations could be eligible for compensation if they suffer from radiation-related illnesses.

The department listed the mills on a report that advises government officials, attorneys and others that employees of the affected mills are eligible.

According to the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (http://bit.ly/AxeB3E ), the qualifications are limited to specified dates of work on environmental-remediation efforts.

Information from: The Daily Sentinel, http://www.gjsentinel.com

Uranium mining won't bring promised good life

2012-01-23T06:34:00.013-05:00

Posted: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 12:09 pm

To the editor,
Any type of mining is a dirty, health-affecting business. Radioactive mining will produce mountains of radioactive dirt (tailings), which will be dumped around and look horrible.The fine and microscopic radioactive material, along with all kinds of other pollutant dust, will enter our houses, our lungs, water, food sources, children and you name it. The good, safe life touted by government officials and the mining company won't happen

PCS, a mining company in Morehead City, N.C., tried to put a new plant in Morehead City. The people, too, were told it could be safe and without danger to the community, would not stink and that it would not affect the community. The public received very little information about the whole thing, like us, and found out they were lied to about the jobs that were coming, the tax dollars that they would receive, the stink it would create and just about everything else. Go to http://www.newsobserver.com and ask for "plans for sulfur plant at Morehead City" and look up this information for yourself. We are being told the very same thing.

Just consider the massive transportation of the radioactive materials going through our towns. One accident can do untold harm. We are not immune to disasters. Remember the flood just a few years ago? Our whole area was flooded many feet. If tailings were in the area then, it would have washed that stuff right into our water, onto our land and everywhere else.

Oh, don't take my word for this letter. Research this most vital subject yourself. Go to the library and on the Internet. Many towns are polluted by mining of any kind, much less radioactive mining. Oh, by the way, the mining companies in these towns were not anxious to clean up their pollution, which they claimed wouldn't happen because they mine safely. They found all kinds of scientific studies, which claimed that sickness in the area was not the mining industries' fault. Little towns don't have the resources to fight these big mining companies when it comes to pollution problems, and the companies sure didn't volunteer to take care of these pollution problems.

You may not have the resources to move even though you can't stand the pollution. I know. I lived in polluted Chicago and dust settled all over my house. Also, my children were sick with constant vomiting; my daughter blacked out unexplainably at various times and many other little problems, such as skin rashes, itching, coughing and colds were our constant companions. When I visited other places away from Chicago, these things cleared up. I had to move away from my house so that my family wouldn't be sick all the time.

We have to fight uranium mining with every inch of our lives. Don't be lazy; this is one of the most life-changing things that will affect every member of your family.

There is a reason Japan is getting away from radioactive energy, yet we are contemplating digging radioactive material out of our ground in our backyard, and the tailings will be dumped under our nose, which will still be radioactive for many, many years. There was a reason that our forefathers didn't allow opening our ground to radioactivity. That reason has not changed one bit. I wish our present officials would stand up for our people and fight this thing. Once this is out of Pandora's box, you can't put it back in.

Morehead City's mining plans were stopped because a coalition was formed to expose truth about the mine they were about to get. We can do something to stop this process in our area. Here is a good cause for a younger person than myself to take up the call to organize the towns for miles around to fight this big curse that is about to fall on us. We, as individuals, can write our government officials letters. Let's flood their offices with our letters letting them know that we don't want this thing. If they don't hear from us, they will think it is OK with us.

Irene Buss
Gretna

http://www.wpcva.com/altavista/opinion/article_54cc6fa6-3c77-11e1-a906-0019bb2963f4.html

Dr. Doug Brugge at Elks: Impact of uranium mining in Colorado

2012-01-22T04:02:00.007-05:00

Written on November 30, 2010 by Susan Viebrock

The infamous accident took place March 28, 1979, a partial core meltdown in a unit of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in Pennsylvania. Three Mile Island crystallized anti-nuclear safety concerns and resulted in new regulations for the nuclear industry. According to Dr. Douglas M. Brugge, the nuclear release at Three Mile Island may explain why there is “public and policy interest in the high-technology, highly visible end of the nuclear cycle.”

At the same time, he continues: “The environmental and health consequences of the early steps in the cycle – mining, milling, and processing of uranium ore – may be less appreciated.”

Which is why the Advocacy Coalition of Telluride, in partnership with the Town of Telluride, the Pinhead Institute and the Telluride School District have invited Dr. Brugge to town. Dr. Brugge is one of the world’s experts on the toxicity and health effects of uranium exposure from mining, milling, and processing,” those “early steps.”

Dr. Brugge is speaking Monday, December 6, 6:00 p.m. at The Palm. His topic: “Dirty Secrets: The Health Effects of Uranium Mining, New Research Findings.” Earlier that same day, the professor is talking with local and regional science students.

What me worry? No one is mining in my backyard.

True, but a Canadian company, Energy Fuels, is fixing to put up a mill just down the road a piece in Paradox Valley. And if the wind blows (as usual) in our direction? Radioactive snow anyone? That melts to become our drinking water.

Cindy McFadden, a civilian-turned-activist, is a key player on the Advocacy Coalition team. While trolling the Internet for information about the impacts of uranium mining, the name “Doug Brugge” kept coming up.

“I was most struck by the fact that Dr. Brugge grew up on the Navajo reservation. As a result, this Harvard PhD (in cellular/developmental biology), a man who holds an MS in industrial hygiene, also from Harvard, ended up studying the health effects of uranium mining on the Navajos. And the results of his investigations: not pretty,” explained McFadden. “I have a couple of contacts down in Ship Rock who are now studying the health effects of mining uranium on the families of the miners. Uranium could well be the link in their health-related issues, because it is a fact miners bring all this radioactive and toxic material home on their clothes, constantly exposing their families. But as of yet, as far as I know, there is no conclusive scientific evidence.”

Read more:
http://www.tellurideinside.com/2010/11/dr-doug-brugge-elks-impact-of-uranium-mining-in-colorado-126.html

Help Keep the Roanoke River Free of Uranium!

2012-01-21T16:21:00.000-05:00

January 19, 2012

Jessie Thomas-Blate
Coordinator, Most Endangered Rivers

Earlier this year, American Rivers listed the Roanoke River as one of America’s Most Endangered Rivers® because it was threatened with a uranium mine. Recently, the National Academy of Sciences released a study on the potential impacts of uranium mining in Virginia.

Now, the fight is heading to the state legislature.

Our partners, the Keep the Ban Coalition, are trying to save the Roanoke River and preserve the health of area residents. They ask you to show your support through signing their petition in the note below:

“Radioactive waste dump of the East?

Last year, American Rivers listed the Roanoke River in Virginia as #3 on its list of America’s Most Endangered Rivers®. The reason? A proposal to mine what is thought to be the largest undeveloped uranium deposit in North America, in a rural area north of Danville, Virginia. It would be the first uranium mine, mill, and waste site in the eastern United States.

For 30 years, Virginia has banned uranium mining, but now, Virginia Uranium, Inc. is bankrolling a major push in the General Assembly to lift the ban this year. It concedes only 0.06% of the deposit could be milled into “yellowcake” for fuel. The remaining 58 billion pounds of waste would have to managed in perpetuity.

We need your help today! Please sign a citizen petition by January 23 to KEEP THE BAN: http://keeptheban.org/?page_id=237

Read more:
http://www.americanrivers.org/newsroom/blog/jthomas-2012118-help-keep-the-roanoke-river-free-of-uranium.html

Uranium: The Deadliest Metal

2012-01-21T03:52:00.006-05:00

by Dr. Gordon Edwards, President of CCNR

This article appeared in Perception magazine, v. 10 n. 2, 1992

Dying for a Living

As early as 1546, and for centuries afterwards, it was reported that underground miners in Schneeberg, Germany, suffered an unusually high incidence of fatal lung disease. In 1879, it was demonstrated both clinically and anatomically that about half of these miners were dying of lung cancer. This was a much higher incidence of lung cancer than that found in the general population. The same grim statistic -- 50 per cent mortality from lung cancer -- was later found among the miners in Joachimsthal, Czechoslovakia. The ores in question were particularly rich in uranium.

Similar excesses in lung cancer incidence have occurred among iron, lead and zinc miners in Sweden, in fluorspar miners in Newfoundland, and especially among uranium miners in all parts of the world. Scientific papers published in the 1930s, even before the outbreak of World War II, clearly indicated that airborne radioactivity in the mines was the most likely cause of this lung cancer. The principal culprits are radon gas and its solid by-products, the so-called "radon daughters."

Acceptable Doses?

According to all scientific evidence, there is no such thing as a "safe dose" of radiation. Every dose of radiation will cause a corresponding increase in cancers and other diseases. Spreading a given dose out to a larger number of people -- so that each individual dose is smaller -- does not reduce the number of resulting illnesses. In fact, in the case of alpha radiation, there is very strong evidence from many different quarters that spreading a dose out among more people actually increases the total number of cancers and other diseases. Uranium and most of its by-products, including thorium, radium, radon and most of the radon daughters fall into this category of alpha-emitting substances.

Since the town of Port Hope had been thoroughly contaminated with alpha- emitting radioactive substances, the Canadian nuclear authorities had to make a political decision back in 1975: What was an acceptable level for radioactive contamination in a private residence?

And so a standard for an "acceptable level" of radon contamination in a private home was set at about 20 times the normal background levels of radon, to guide the cleanup operations at Port Hope. Before long, that same standard was being used for the construction of whole subdivisions of new homes in Elliot Lake in the late 1970s. Radon levels in these new homes were so unacceptably high that fans had to be installed under the floorboards to blow the radon out of the house. Sometimes two fans had to be installed to bring the contamination levels down to the"acceptable" level.

Boosting the Cancer Rate

In testimony to the Elliot Lake Environmental Assessment Board in 1978, mortality figures published by the Ontario government were used to show that even the "acceptable" levels of radon contamination in homes would result in an extra 17 lung cancer deaths per thousand people chronically exposed to such levels. In other words, instead of 54 lung cancers per thousand, one would expect 71, a 31 per cent increase. In light of this evidence, the Board recommended that the radon standard for homes be reassessed. But no such reassessment has taken place.

Since 1980 the B.C. Medical Association has published a slightly higher risk estimate and has condemned the radon standard for homes "as tantamount to allowing an industrially induced epidemic of cancer." A 1982 report published by the Atomic Energy Control Board concurs, estimating a 40 percent increase in lung cancer among those living in homes contaminated to the "acceptable" radon level.

Radioactive Smoke

Radon gas is also given off by phosphate fertilizers (since phosphate ores are rich in uranium). When tobacco crops are so fertilized, radon gas accumulates under the thick canopy of tobacco leaves, and tiny dust particles impregnated with radon daughters adhere to the sticky, resinous hairs on the underside of each leaf. When harvested, the tobacco contains high concentrations of radioactive lead-210 and polonium-210. Cigarette smokers breathe these radon daughters into their lungs with every inhalation.

Some of these radioactive particles lodge in the lungs of smokers, as confirmed by autopsies. Others enter the bloodstream along with oxygen and carbon monoxide. Radioactive deposits of this kind have been found in plaque removed from sclerotic arteries. Many researchers now believe these excessive concentrations of radon daughters are responsible for most of the 135,000 deaths each year in the U.S. from lung cancer, strokes and heart disease which the American Medical Association attributes to smoking.

Fallout from Uranium Mines

In addition to killing uranium miners and those living in contaminated homes, each uranium mine is, in effect, a "slow bomb" -- spreading deadly radioactive poisons over vast areas of the earth, as surely as the Chernobyl disaster did, as surely as atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons have done, but at an insidiously slower rate. Radon gas can travel a thousand miles in just a few days, with a light breeze. As it travels low to the ground (it is much heavier than air) it deposits its "daughters" -- solid radioactive fallout -- on the vegetation, soil and water below; the resulting radioactive materials enter the food chain, ending up in fruits and berries, the flesh of fish and animals, and ultimately, in the bodies of human beings.

On February 25, 1986, the Wall Street Journal printed a front page story that portrayed the 220 million tons of uranium tailings in the U.S. as an ecological and financial time bomb. (In Canada, we have about 150 million tons of such tailings.) Everyone agrees that these materials are too dangerously radioactive to leave on the surface of the earth, yet no one has devised a satisfactory method for permanently containing them. Even at a very modest rate, say $10 per ton, it will cost billions of dollars to dispose of these wastes.

Read more:
http://www.ccnr.org/uranium_deadliest.html

Tell the Governor: Radioactive Decisions Shouldn't Be Made in the Dark

2012-01-20T16:27:00.000-05:00

Governor McDonnell has asked the General Assembly not to take up any uranium mining bills in 2012. The good news is that this means the uranium ban is likely to survive 2012. The bad news is that the Governor may be trying to sidestep the legislative process altogether.

He has asked his state agencies to write draft legislation to lift the ban and to create draft regulations. This puts the cart before the horse. The National Academy of Sciences just confirmed how risky uranium mining in Virginia could be, and called on the Commonwealth not to move forward without substantial public input and without extensive scientific and technical briefings.

Enter your contact information below to send a letter to Governor McDonnell. You can use the form letter provided, or edit it to include your own thoughts and concerns.

Click below to send letter to the Governor:
https://secure3.convio.net/citnet/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=685&autologin=true&scid=1021

Ontario Lung Association-Radon: The Risk is Real, Especially for Smokers

2012-01-20T03:45:00.006-05:00

press release

Jan. 10, 2012, 12:35 p.m. EST

Ontario Lung Association-Radon: The Risk is Real, Especially for Smokers

TORONTO, ONTARIO, Jan 10, 2012 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- Editors Note: There are two photos associated with this press release.

January is radon action month, for good reason. Despite being the second leading cause of lung cancer, awareness about this natural gas is extremely low. The Ontario Lung Association is urging homeowners and occupants to better educate themselves about the potential health risks radon poses for the whole family, especially for smokers.

What is radon?

Radon is a gas naturally produced by the breakdown of uranium in the ground that can seep into a home often through its foundation. It goes undetected because you can't see it, smell it or taste it. Radon is random; there is no formula for predicting which home will have high levels of radon. The best way to detect radon is to test your home.

Higher risk for smokers

Non-smokers exposed to high levels of radon over a long period have a one in 20 chance of developing lung cancer. This risk increases to one in three for smokers under the same conditions. While 90 per cent of lung cancer deaths in Canada are caused by smoking, radon exposure is linked to the remaining 10 per cent.

What you can do

The Ontario Lung Association encourages consumers to:

1. Purchase a home radon test kit at a major Canadian retailer or online. Winter is the best time for testing, which takes approximately 90 days. The cost is about $40-$60 (including lab analysis fees), and comes with peace of mind. During National Non-Smoking Week - January 16 to 20, 2012 - the lung health organization is offering free radon home test kits to Ontario residents through its Helpline at 1-888-344-LUNG (5864) while supplies last.

2. Quit smoking. Nicotine can be a strong addiction so quitting can often be difficult for smokers. Individuals interested in quitting for good are encouraged to call The Lung Association's Helpline at 1-888-344-LUNG (5864) and speak to a certified respiratory educator who can help develop an effective quit plan.

Additional information

Want to know more about radon? Visit www.on.lung.ca/radon

Read more:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ontario-lung-association-radon-the-risk-is-real-especially-for-smokers-2012-01-10

Governor McDonnell Asks General Assembly to Keep Uranium Mining Moratorium in Place in 2012

2012-01-19T15:38:00.001-05:00

Comment: call Gov. McDonnell and ask him NOT TO DRAFT REGULATIONS on uranium mining and milling in Virginia.

Comment: Please call The Gov. Telephone number is 804-786-2211. Lets flood his office with calls! Please forward to others on address book! We need to Keep the Ban on Uranium Mining and Milling in VA

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of Governor Bob McDonnell

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 19, 2012

Contact: Jeff Caldwell
Phone: (804) 225-4260
Email: Jeff.Caldwell@Governor.Virginia.Gov

Governor McDonnell Asks General Assembly to Keep Uranium Mining Moratorium in Place in 2012

Session Issues Directive to State Agencies to Analyze Scientific and Legal Issues and Report Back Prior to 2013

McDonnell: “Before we make important policy decisions about whether or not to proceed, we must be certain that uranium mining can be conducted safely and responsibly.”

Governor’s Directive Available Here

RICHMOND – Governor Bob McDonnell is asking the General Assembly to take no action to permit uranium mining during its 2012 session, calling instead for the continuation of the state’s moratorium on uranium mining pending a comprehensive and on-site study of the issue to be completed by a newly-created multi-agency state workgroup. The Governor’s directive that the state work group look further into the specific issues surrounding mining at a particular site in the Commonwealth follows a thorough review by the McDonnell Administration of the recent National Academy of Sciences report that looked broadly at uranium mining in Virginia. The report noted, “At present, there are gaps in legal and regulatory coverage for activities involved in uranium mining, processing, reclamation and long-term stewardship. Some of these gaps have resulted from the moratorium on uranium mining that Virginia has in place; others are gaps in current laws or regulations, or in the way that they are applied.” The Governor also consulted with agency heads, legislators, business leaders and others concerning the prudent course of action on this complicated issue.

Speaking about his decision to seek greater information regarding the efficacy and safety of uranium mining in Pittsylvania County, the Governor stated, “Over the past month I, along with members of our administration, have analyzed the NAS report on uranium mining in the Commonwealth in great detail. We have spoken with local legislators, agency heads, scientists as well as business and community leaders in and around the potential mining region. To further understand the issue members of our administration, including technical experts, traveled to Coles Hill to view the property personally. They also traveled to a uranium mining site in Canada to gain a greater understanding of the scientific and legal issues that must be addressed if Virginia were to move forward. Yesterday, I received a letter from a bipartisan group of Virginia legislators from the Uranium Subcommittee of the Coal and Energy Commission of the General Assembly asking that our Administration delay any action on uranium mining until such time that a more thorough and on-site review of the issue could take place. As a result of our analysis, and consideration of the points made in the letter, I believe that such an on-site study must take place before any action is taken. The NAS study was broadly helpful in providing a better understanding of the associated economic benefits, which are potentially significant, as well as the possible risks, which are potentially serious, associated with uranium mining in this geography and climate. However, in order for an informed decision to be made by state lawmakers, we need more detailed information. Before we make any decisions about whether or not to proceed down the path to development, we must be certain that uranium mining can be conducted safely and responsibly. Public safety must be the primary factor in the ultimate determination as to whether to proceed with uranium mining.

To attain that information, I have today sent a letter to my Secretaries of Natural Resources, Commerce and Trade and Health and Human Resources asking them to create a working group, comprised of the appropriate technical staff from the Departments of Health, Environmental Quality, and Mines, Minerals and Energy, which will develop a draft regulatory framework for presentation to the Coal and Energy Commission next year. My letter sets out more than a dozen issues that need to be addressed by the working group. Further, I have directed the group to report their progress to the legislative Uranium Subcommittee no fewer than three times over the next year, and to allow thorough opportunity for public participation in its work.

I have been clear that we must base all decisions on this matter on public safety and science. While uranium mining could mean the creation of high-paying jobs for our citizens, a boost for the important nuclear power industry, increased economic development for the region, and the generation of significant tax revenue for the entire Commonwealth, we must prudently study this issue to ensure that such mining would not impair the health of our people, or the condition of our environment. The NAS study, while broadly helpful, left many questions still unanswered. Some of those questions can only be answered through an on-site evaluation of Coles Hill and the surrounding area. I look forward to receiving the draft statutory proposal and regulatory framework from this working group. This analysis will arm the Commonwealth’s policy makers with more information and data so that they can soundly determine the proper course of action moving forward.”

The Consequences of Toxic Uranium

2012-01-19T03:42:00.007-05:00

Environmental Impacts

Uranium mining and milling produces massive amounts of toxic waste that can contaminate air, drinking water, and pristine rivers and streams. Virtually all uranium mining in the U.S. has occurred in sparsely populated regions of the arid west, where rainfall is often below 15 inches per year. Still, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, tailings have contaminated the groundwater at almost all U.S. mill sites. In Virginia, the toxic runoff would pose an unprecedented danger. According to the EPA, "Water is perhaps the most significant means of dispersal of uranium and related ...[radioactive materials] in the environment from mines and mine wastes....Uranium is very soluble in acidic and alkaline waters and can be transported easily from a mine site." Uranium's radioactive components, particularly radium and radon, are very soluble in water, which would be a dangerous experiment for a state like Virginia with over 42 inches of rain per year.

Uranium mining in the Western United States in the last century created a shameful legacy in terms of human and environmental devastation....

Proponents of uranium mining acknowledge that uranium mining has had "shameful legacy in terms of human and environmental devastation." As noted by the Natural Resources Defense Council in recent comments to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

"The history of uranium recovery and management in the United States (and, indeed around the globe) is replete with environmental damage, serious worker safety and health abuses, and harm to entire communities....Additionally, most of the environmentally damaged sites have not received adequate cleanup of past harms, and for what little cleanup has been done, most of the cost has been borne by taxpayers rather than the companies and associated beneficiaries of the uranium mined."

In "Exposure Pathway and Health Effects Associated with Chemical and Radiological Toxicity of Natural Uranium: A Review," (2005) Dr. Doug Brugge and others at the Tufts University School of Medicine noted: "Currently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) lists 23 National Priorities List (NPL) sites where uranium is a contaminant of concern .... Uranium, however, is explicitly excluded from the scoring system that is used to place sites on the NPL precluding most abandoned mines from being listed."

Health Impacts

Numerous health problems are associated with uranium and associated decay products and heavy metals. These include cancer from radon, birth defects and kidney problems from uranium, bone cancer and leukemia from radium, and lung and skin cancer from arsenic.

According to the EPA website "There are four principal ways (or exposure pathways) that the public can be exposed to the hazards from this waste."
1."The first is the diffusion of radon gas directly into indoor air if tailings are misused as a construction material or for backfill around buildings. When people breathe air containing radon, it increases their risk of developing lung cancer."
2.Second, radon gas can diffuse from the piles into the atmosphere where it can be inhaled and small particles can be blown from the piles where they can be inhaled or ingested."
3."Third, many of the radioactive decay products in tailings produce gamma radiation, which poses a health hazard to people in the immediate vicinity of tailings."
4."Finally, the dispersal of tailings by wind or water, or by leaching, can carry radioactive and other toxic materials to surface or ground water that may be used for drinking water."

In 2007, the Colorado Medical Society resolved that it "opposes the practice of in-situ and open pit mining of uranium due to the adverse health impact of radioactively contaminated water on our agriculture, livestock and civilian population." In his 2007 testimony before Congress, Dr. Brugge described "uranium ore ... [as] a toxic brew of numerous nasty hazardous materials."

Read more:
http://www.pecva.org/anx/index.cfm/1,391,1321,0,html/The-Consequences-of-Toxic-Uranium

Infectious Fungus Common In Household Drains

2012-01-18T00:29:00.000-05:00

by Nancy Shute

What gunk lurks in the bathroom sink drain? A fungus that can cause infections in humans, for one thing.

The fungus in question (genus Fusarium) can cause sinus infections and funky toenails. On rare occasions it kills people with weak immune systems. More recently, it has caused serious eye infections in people who wear contact lenses.

The types of Fusarium that caused the outbreaks of eye infections in 2005 and 2006 are sometimes found in household plumbing, so researchers at Penn State University set out to see just how common they are. They swabbed 471 bathroom drains in the Eastern U.S. and California, and found that two-thirds of sink drains harbored at least one Fusarium strain.

The six strains that were most common in drains are also the ones most likely to cause infections in humans, including the ones that cause eye infections. The results were published recently in the current Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

Now, let's be clear. The results don't prove that sink drains are the source of eye infections, or any other health problems. And the latest research doesn't explain how the fungus could get out of the drain and infect humans.

One theory is that the people who got eye infections weren't replacing the lens solution in the case, so it lost its ability to disinfect. Fusarium has been found in hospital plumbing, and the authors of this new study speculate that plumbing could be a "hidden source of infection in hospitals and the community."

Fusarium causes allergic sinusitis, Sublett says, and very rarely, fungal sinus infections. But it and other molds are everywhere in the environment, Sublett notes, and rarely make us sick.

He tells his patients to use exhaust fans in bathrooms and kitchens to reduce humidity, and to avoid using humidifiers. The Environmental Protection Agency also recommends keeping humidity low.

Read more:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/12/22/144147521/infectious-fungus-common-in-household-drains

WISE Uranium Project - Slide Talk

2012-01-17T05:17:00.000-05:00

Uranium Mining and Milling

Uranium mining and milling basics
- Environmental impacts
- Health hazards for miners and residents

Great slide, click here to see slide:

http://www.wise-uranium.org/stk.html?src=stkd01e

2012-01-16T03:28:00.003-05:00

Press Release December 19, 2011

More Info:Uranium Mining - A Risky Experiment

Print This Press Release

NAS Report Validates Major Environmental, Health Concerns Raised by Uranium Mining Opponents

Cale Jaffe, Senior Attorney, 434-977-4090

In Partnership With:

Piedmont Environmental Council - Dan Holmes, 571-213-4250

Richmond, VA – The long-awaited report issued by the National Academy of Sciences today echoes numerous pitfalls with potential uranium mining, milling and waste disposal in the Commonwealth that many concerned Virginians have expressed in past months.

The 300-page report was commissioned by the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission and is part of an ongoing contract between the commission and NAS that includes a public outreach and public meeting period over the next five months. The report does not make any recommendations about whether Virginia should or should not allow uranium mining, but raises significant environmental and public health concerns.

Read the National Academy of Sciences report here.

State law has maintained a nearly 30-year ban on uranium mining. Virginia Uranium, Inc., which wants to establish a uranium mine, mill, and waste disposal site in Pittsylvania County, is pushing the General Assembly to lift the ban in 2012, beginning with the drafting of regulations.

"This is a huge validation for many of the core concerns that we have been raising," said Cale Jaffe, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. "As the report highlights, a uranium mine or processing facility could be subject to an uncontrolled release as a result of flood, hurricane, or earthquake. In Virginia, we've experienced all of those extreme events just this year."

"The report highlights the difficulty of storing radioactive waste for thousands of years, given Virginia's climate, geology and population density. " said Dan Holmes, Director of State Policy for the Piedmont Environmental Council. "We are now more convinced that this would be a dangerous experiment in Virginia."

Among the cautionary points found by the NAS study committee:

A HUGE RISK - ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: "Furthermore, Virginia is subject to relatively frequent storms that produce intense rainfall. It is questionable whether currently-engineered tailings repositories could be expected to prevent erosion and surface and groundwater contamination for as long as 1,000 years. Natural events such as hurricanes, earthquakes, intense rainfall, or drought could lead to the release of contaminants if facilities are not designed and constructed to withstand such events, or if they fail to perform as designed."

SEVERE CONTAMINATION RISKS EXIST: "Moreover, in a hydrologically active environment such as Virginia, with relatively frequent tropical and convective storms producing intense rainfall, it is questionable whether currently-engineered tailings repositories could be expected to prevent erosion and surface and groundwater contamination for 1,000 years. There are many reports in the literature of releases from improperly disposed tailings and their environmental effects."

A HIGH STAKES GAMBLE: "A mine or processing facility could also be subject to uncontrolled releases of radioactive materials as a result of human error or an extreme event such as a flood, fire, or earthquake."

ADVERSE IMPACTS FOR SOUTHSIDE AGRICULTURE: "Exposure could also occur from the release of contaminated water, or by leaching of radioactive materials into surface or groundwater from uranium tailings or other waste materials, where they could eventually end up in drinking water supplies or could accumulate in the food chain, eventually ending up in the meat, fish, or milk produced in the area."

A HIGH STAKES GAMBLE: "Uranium tailings present a significant potential source of radioactive contamination for thousands of years ... because monitoring of tailings management sites has only been carried out for a short period, monitoring data are insufficient to assess the long-term effectiveness of tailings management facilities designed and constructed according to modern best practices."

CURENT U.S. REGULATIONS ARE INSUFFICIENT: "The decay products of uranium (e.g., 230-Th, 226 Ra) provide a constant source of radiation in uranium tailings for thousands of years, substantially outlasting the current U.S. regulations for oversight of processing facility tailings."

CURRENT U.S REGULATIONS ARE INSUFFICIENT: "The United States federal government has only limited recent experience regulating conventional uranium processing and reclamation of uranium mining and processing facilities. Because almost all uranium mining and processing to date has taken place in parts of the United States that have a negative water balance (dry climates with low rainfall), federal agencies have limited experience applying laws and regulations in positive water balance (wet climates with medium to high rainfall) situations."

CURRENT U.S. REGULATIONS ARE INSUFFICIENT: "The United States' federal government has only limited experience regulating conventional uranium mining, processing, and reclamation over the past two decades, with little new open pit and under-ground uranium mining activity in the United States since the late 1980s."

LONG-TERM RISK: "Tailings disposal sites represent potential sources of contamination for thousands of years, and the long-term risks remain poorly defined."

UNKNOWN RISK: "Additionally, until comprehensive site-specific risk assessments are conducted, including accident and failure analyses, the short-term risk associated with natural disasters, accidents, and spills remain poorly defined."

UNIQUE RISKS FOR VIRGINIA: "In the recent past, most uranium mining and processing has taken place in parts of the United States that have a negative water balance (dry climates with low rainfall), and consequently federal agencies have little experience developing and applying laws and regulations in locations with abundant rainfall and groundwater, and a positive water balance (wet climates with medium to high rainfall), such as Virginia."

PUBLIC PROCESS: "However, under the current regulatory structure, opportunities for meaningful public involvement are fragmented and limited."

WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: "Disturbances of the land surface associated with uranium mining in Virginia would be expected to have significant effects on both on-site and downstream surface water conditions. These disturbances affect both surface water quantity and quality."

###
http://www.southernenvironment.org/newsroom/press_releases/2011-12-19_nas_report/

Potential hazards from uranium mill tailings

2012-01-15T04:09:00.000-05:00

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

The radium-226 in tailings continuously decays to the radioactive gas radon-222, the decay products of which can cause lung cancer. Some of this radon escapes from the interior of the pile. Radon releases are a major hazard that continues after uranium mines are shut down. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates the lifetime excess lung cancer risk of residents living nearby a bare tailings pile of 80 hectares at two cases per hundred.

Since radon spreads quickly with the wind, many people receive small additional radiation doses. Although the excess risk for the individual is small, it cannot be neglected due to the large number of people concerned. EPA estimates that the uranium tailings deposits existing in the United States in 1983 would cause 500 lung cancer deaths per century, if no countermeasures are taken.

Tailings deposits are subject to many kinds of erosion. Due to the long half-lives of the radioactive constituents involved, safety of the deposit has to be guaranteed for very long periods of time.
After rainfall, erosion gullies can form; floods can destroy the whole deposit; plants and burrowing animals can penetrate into the deposit and thus disperse the material, enhance the radon emanation and make the deposit more susceptible to climatic erosion.

When the surface of the pile dries out, the fine sands are blown by the wind over adjacent areas. The sky has darkened from storms blowing up radioactive dust over villages located in the immediate vicinity of Wismut's uranium mill tailings piles. Subsequently, elevated levels of radium-226 and arsenic were found in dust samples from these villages.

Seepage from tailings piles is another major hazard. Seepage poses a risk of contamination to ground and surface water. Residents are also threatened by radium-226 and other hazardous substances like arsenic in their drinking water supplies and in fish from the area. The seepage problem is very important with acidic tailings, as the radionuclides involved are more mobile under acidic conditions. In tailings containing pyrite, acidic conditions automatically develop due to the inherent production of sulfuric acid, which increases migration of contaminants to the environment.

Tailings dams are often not of stable construction. In most cases, they were made from sedimentation of the coarse fraction of the tailings sluge. Some, including those of Culmitzsch and Trünzig in Thuringia, were built on geologic faults. Therefore, they are subject to the risk of an earthquake. As the Thuringian tailings deposits are located in the center of an area of earthquake risk in the former GDR, they suffer a risk of dam failure. Moreover, strong rain or snow storms can also cause dam failures. (for details see: Safety of Tailings Dams)

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

1977, Grants, New Mexico, USA: spill of 50,000 tonnes of sludge and several million liters of contaminated water.
1979, Church Rock, New Mexico, USA: spill of more than 1000 t of sludge and about 400 million liters of contaminated water.
1984, Key Lake, Saskatchewan, Canada: spill of more than 100 million liters of contaminated liquids.

http://www.wise-uranium.org/uwai.html#TAILHAZ

Online chat on uranium mining: Monday, Jan. 16

2012-01-14T19:36:00.002-05:00

Online chat on uranium mining: Monday, Jan. 16

The Roanoke Times (www.roanoke.com) will be having an online chat on uranium mining, with myself and VT Professor Bodnar online to answer questions.

Time is TBA (likely noon).

Please put it on your calendar, log in to www.roanoke.com on Monday, and share your good questions and comments on uranium!

Cale

Cale Jaffe

Senior Attorney
Southern Environmental Law Center
201 West Main St., Suite 14
Charlottesville, VA 22902-5065
(434) 977-4090
Fax (434) 977-1483

www.southernenvironment.org

Grand Canyon Victory: New mining ban at last!

2012-01-14T16:29:00.000-05:00

January 11, 2012 By Jennifer Dickson

We’re happy to report the Interior Department has announced a prohibition on mining at the Grand Canyon and the surrounding watersheds for the next 20 years.

Wildalert members helped secure mining moratorium

New mining claims will be prohibited across more than 1 million acres of public lands making up Grand Canyon National Park’s watershed, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced Jan. 9. Many thanks to our wildalert members who helped contribute to this win by sending thousands of letters to the Interior department over the past year.

How mining hurts the Grand Canyon watershed

Development of valid mining claims staked before the ban will continue to be permitted, but the recent decision will prevent additional mining development from further threatening the magnificent lands in the Grand Canyon watershed.

Further mining would industrialize the iconic wildlands flanking the park with:

-new roads

-mines

-exploration drilling

-power lines

- truck traffic.

All of this industrial activity threatens to damage wildlife habitat and world-class hunting grounds.

http://wilderness.org/content/grand-canyon-victory-new-mining-ban-last

Future of the Piedmont: More time needed to study uranium

2012-01-14T03:35:00.006-05:00

Posted: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 9:38 pm | Updated: 9:39 pm, Tue Jan 10, 2012.
By BEN DAVENPORT JR.

Since its founding in 1999, the Future of the Piedmont Foundation has been dedicated to the economic transformation and renewal of southern Virginia.

The foundation, made up of private sector leaders from the region, has played a key role in economic diversification, educational improvement, and workforce development.

The foundation has consistently put the shared interests of the region above those of any firm, institution, or individual.

Over the past decade, this region has looked at many economic opportunities. Any opportunity must be carefully considered in terms of who benefits and how, what are the likely costs and who will pay for them, and the implications of the opportunity for overall well-being of the region.

The proposed uranium mine and mill at Coles Hill in Pittsylvania County is the subject of growing public debate, informed by a series of major studies conducted by respected independent research organizations.

Those reports, totaling a length of more than 1,000 pages, provide a wealth of information on the possible economic benefits and the reputational, environmental and human risks of uranium mining in Virginia.

The majority of these reports have been available only for a very brief period of time and have not been fully analyzed by the concerned public or our elected representatives.

The Future of the Piedmont Foundation is very concerned about the potential implications of this mine and mill for the future viability of this region.

We are also very concerned about the potential long-term capacity of the Commonwealth of Virginia to invest millions of dollars in the development and implementation of a regulatory regime that will protect the health and well-being of this region.

Therefore, we believe no action should be taken in 2012 to lift the current moratorium related to uranium mining.

Read more:
http://www.wpcva.com/opinion/article_86fab7e6-3bfd-11e1-aaa7-0019bb2963f4.html

8 of the World’s Healthiest Spices & Herbs You Should Be Eating

2012-01-13T05:18:00.012-05:00

Dr Akilah El – Celestial Healing Wellness Center
Posted by docakilah on December 7, 2011
By Kerri-Ann Jennings, M.S., R.D.,

As a registered dietitian and associate nutrition editor at EatingWell Magazine, I know that herbs and spices do more than simply add flavor to food. They let you cut down on some less-healthy ingredients, such as salt, added sugars and saturated fat, and some have inherent health benefits, many of which Joyce Hendley reported on for EatingWell Magazine.

Modern science is beginning to uncover the ultimate power of spices and herbs, as weapons against illnesses from cancer to Alzheimer’s disease. “We’re now starting to see a scientific basis for why people have been using spices medicinally for thousands of years,” says Bharat Aggarwal, Ph.D., professor at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston and author of Healing Spices (Sterling, 2011).

Chile Peppers
May help: Boost metabolism.

Ginger
May help: Soothe an upset stomach, fight arthritis pain.

Cinnamon
May help: Stabilize blood sugar.

Read more:

http://docakilah.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/8-of-the-worlds-healthiest-spices-herbs-you-should-be-eating/

Keep the Ban Dance Concert Planned: January 12 at 7:30 p.m. at Dogtown Roadhouse

2012-01-12T03:20:00.002-05:00

It’s been nearly a year since a group of Pittsylvania County residents traveled to Floyd County to give a power point presentation, alerting local residents about Virginia Uranium Inc.’s intent to mine and mill uranium in Virginia for use in the production of nuclear power. A reported 119 million pounds of uranium – worth as much as $10 billion is at stake for the company, which consists of Virginia investors, Canadian partners and land owners of the property in Pittsylvania County where the mining site is proposed.

Concerned about the radioactive waste associated with uranium mining and its risk to drinking water, human health, farmland, property values and tourism, a group of Floyd citizens formed UBAN, a grassroots organization named for the goal of keeping a 30 year statewide ban on uranium mining in place.

Throughout the year UBAN members have partnered with other Virginia groups to educate people on the issue. Members have staffed educational booths at festivals, hosted benefits, collected petition signatures, attended local and regional meetings and voiced their concerns to their representatives

Uranium mining and milling has been known to increase birth defects and cancer, particularly in those who live near the mines. The mining industry’s safety record in the past has not been good, Armistead said. “Church Rock in New Mexico is the biggest radioactive release disaster in this country. It was worse than Three Mile Island, but you don’t hear much about it.” A waste water storage system in Church Rock failed and radioactive water was released in 1979.

The National Academy of Science recently released its highly anticipated 22-month review on uranium mining. The report did not make any recommendations on the ban but pointed to “steep hurdles” that mining prospectors would have to overcome. It also highlighted the difficulty of storing radioactive waste for thousands of years, considering Virginia’s climate, geology and population.

A by-donation “Keep the Ban” benefit dance concert is planned for Thursday, January 12 at 7:30 p.m. at Dogtown Roadhouse. Along with the scheduled music entertainment, Mighty Shakey and the RockuPyers, organizers plan to host an information table and have a guest speaker. They hope to inspire others to attend a Keep the Ban Lobby Day, hosted by the conservation community in Richmond on January 23rd. Mary Rafferty, a Sierra Club organizer and UBAN resource from Richmond, says the event will involve a morning workshop on lobbying, followed by a trip to the capitol to meet with legislators.

“This is our one chance. If people take one day out of their life to do this one thing and we make enough of a showing, we can have an impact and stop this.” Kovick urged. ~ Colleen Redman

Read more:
http://www.looseleafnotes.com/wp/2012/01/keep-the-ban-dance-concert-planned/

Lawmakers seek to stall uranium vote in General Assembly

2012-01-11T01:55:00.005-05:00

Written by Staff
07:41 am 01/04/12

With more information to absorb than time permits before next week’s General Assembly session gets under way, local legislators are asking colleagues to delay action this year on lifting the state ban on uranium mining that has been in place for the past three decades.

Drafted by Del. James E. Edmunds II of Halifax and signed by Sen. Frank Ruff Jr. of Clarksville, Danny W.

Marshall of Danville, Donald W. Merricks of Chatham and Thomas C. Wright of Lunenburg, a letter was penned Dec. 28 and sent out to legislators this week.

In the letter, Edmunds refers to the recently unveiled National Academy of Sciences Report on uranium mining that followed similar reports by Chmura Economics, the Danville Regional Foundation, Virginia Beach and others that have drawn extensive newspaper coverage. He described the reports as “long and detailed” with parts that are “dense and complex.”

He added, “What they are not is boring.”

“Uranium mining will be the single most important and most visible public policy issue of the session,” he wrote.

The local delegate said it will only take one spill, one reading above “acceptable” levels or one newspaper article documenting elevated radon levels or toxic chemicals in the water for the public stigma to be “devastating.”

“Untold harm will be done to economic development and property values for years,” he wrote.

Because legislators need time to digest the studies, particularly the Academy’s sections on the risks to public health and the environment, Edmunds urged his fellow legislators to take time to read the reports.

“Don’t simply rely on advocates of either view or lobbyists with an agenda. This is too important,” he said.

Those signing the letter question how the General Assembly can in good conscious vote on such an important issue as lifting the uranium moratorium when the public education effort is just getting under way.

Public hearings on the National Academy of Sciences report are scheduled to be conducted around the state during upcoming months.

Edmunds pointed out history teaches that human error and system failures are inevitable.

“The unexpected happens. Design flaws show up after the fact. Mistakes occur, hurricanes and earthquakes will happen… the question is not if these events will occur, but when and at what cost,” the delegate continued.

Read more:
http://www.gazettevirginian.com/index.php/news/34-news/4664-lawmakers-seek-to-stall-uranium-vote-in-general-assembly

URANIUM: Known Facts and Hidden Dangers

2012-01-09T00:49:00.001-05:00

Health Effects of Radioactive Materials

And so this one material, uranium, is responsible for introducing into the human environment a tremendously large range of radioactive materials which are all very inimical to biological organisms. These are not invisible rays, they are materials. They get into our water, our food, and the air we breathe. They're exactly like other materials except for the fact that they're radioactive.

Take, for instance, radioactive iodine. It behaves just like ordinary iodine, which is not radioactive. Why is there iodine in our table salt? Well, it's one of the few examples of preventative medicine we have. The iodine, when it's eaten in the table salt, goes to the thyroid gland, and there it helps to prevent a disease of the thyroid gland called "goiter". Radioactive iodine does exactly the same thing. If a child or an adult gets radioactive iodine in the diet, the radioactive iodine goes to the thyroid too, and it also helps to prevent goiter. But while it's there, the atoms explode, and the shrapnel rips through the cells of the body, and in the process breaks thousands of chemical bonds randomly.

It's like throwing a grenade into a computer. The probability of getting an improvement in a computer by throwing a grenade into it is very small, and similarly with radiation events and human cells. Now, the cells that die are really no problem, as long as not too many of them die. They can be replaced. The ones that are particularly dangerous are the ones that survive. Those damaged cells can develop into cancers. You can also have damage to germ cells -- eggs and sperm -- leading to genetically damaged children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren.

As Alice Stewart mentioned in her talk, there are two categories of human illness that everyone agrees can be caused by exposure to atomic radiation even at very low levels. They are (1) cancers of all kinds, and also (2) genetic mutations -- which can be caused right down to the lowest levels of radiation exposure. Most scientists believe that these harmful effects are linearly related to the dose, so that if the dose is doubled, the number of cancers and genetic defects will also be doubled, and if the dose is cut in half, only half as many cancers and genetic defects will be seen. It is important to realize that if a damaging dose is spread out among a very large population, so that each individual receives only a very small portion of the total dose, the number of cancers and genetic defects is in no way diminished. Thus, in the case of radioactive pollution, dilution is no solution at all.

However, there is one other effect of radiation at low levels which wasn't mentioned in the previous talk, and I would like to just mention it here. It has now been confirmed by the scientific community -- only in recent years, by the way -- that mental retardation is caused by radiation exposure in the womb. This type of biological damage also seems to be linear, that is, proportional to dose, right down to the lowest levels of exposure. There doesn't seem to be any cut-off point. And so we have now discovered yet a third category of documented and scientifically accepted harmful effects of radiation and that is mental retardation in children who were irradiated while still in the womb.

Uranium Tailings
The title of my talk was "Known facts and hidden dangers". I've told you a bit about the known facts. Now for at least one of the hidden dangers.

When we extract uranium from the ground, we dig up the rock, we crush it and we leave behind this finely pulverized material -- it's like flour. In Canada we have 200 million tons of this radioactive waste, called uranium tailings. As Marie Curie observed, 85 percent of the radioactivity in the ore remains behind in that crushed rock. How long will it be there? Well, it turns out that the effective half-life of this radioactivity is 80,000 years. That means in 80,000 years there will be half as much radioactivity in these tailings as there is today.

You know, that dwarfs the entire prehistory of the Salzburg region which goes way back to ancient, ancient times. Even archaeological remains date back no further than 80,000 years. We don't have any records of human existence going back that far. That's the half-life of this material.

And as these tailings are left on the surface of the earth, they are blown by the wind, they are washed by the rain into the water systems, and they inevitably spread. Once the mining companies close down, who is going to look after this material forever? How does anyone, in fact, guard 200 million tons of radioactive sand safely forever, and keep it out of the environment?

In addition, as the tailings are sitting there on the surface, they are continually generating radon gas. Radon is about eight times heavier than air, so it stays close to the ground. It'll travel 1,000 miles in just a few days in a light breeze. And as it drifts along, it deposits on the vegetation below the radon daughters, which are the radioactive byproducts that I told you about, including polonium. So that you actually get radon daughters in animals, fish and plants thousands of miles away from where the uranium mining is done. It's a mechanism for pumping radioactivity into the environment for millennia to come, and this is one of the hidden dangers.

Conclusion

That's the destiny of all the uranium that's mined. And in the process of mining the uranium we liberate these naturally occurring radioactive substances, which are among the most harmful materials known to science.

Couple this with the thought that nuclear technology never was a solution to any human problem.

All you need for conventional electricity generation is to spin a wheel, and there's many ways of doing it: water power, wind power, geothermal power, etc. In addition, there are other methods for producing electricity directly: solar photovoltaics, fuel cells, and so on. What we have here, in the case of nuclear power, from the very beginning, is a technology in search of an application.

So, I think that we as a human community have to come to grips with this problem and say to ourselves and to others that enough is enough. We do not want to permanently increase our radiation levels on this planet. We have enough problems already.

Thank you.

Gordon Edwards, Ph.D.,
mathematician -- consultant -- activist and president
Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
internet: http://www.ccnr.org/

Read more:
http://ratical.org/radiation/WorldUraniumHearing/GordonEdwards.html#N5

2012-01-08T00:43:00.009-05:00

Decay Products
When a radioactive atom explodes, that atom is changed permanently into a new substance. And radium turns out to be one of the results of exploding uranium atoms. So wherever you find uranium on the earth, you will always find radium with it because it is one of about a dozen so-called "decay products" of uranium.

To be more precise, when uranium disintegrates it turns into a substance called protactinium, which is also radioactive. And when that disintegrates it turns into a substance named thorium, which is likewise radioactive. When thorium disintegrates it turns into radium; when radium disintegrates it turns into radon gas. And when radon gas atoms disintegrate, they turn into what are called the "radon daughters", or "radon progeny", of which there are about half a dozen radioactive materials, including polonium.

Finally, in this progression, you end up with a stable substance, which in itself is highly toxic: lead.

But because the radioactivity of the other materials is so much more dangerous than this toxic heavy metal, people don't even talk about the lead at the end of the chain. They think that once all the radioactivity is gone, what's left is perfectly safe. It isn't -- but the lead that remains is just a whole lot less dangerous than the radioactive materials that produced it.

So all the radioactive decay products of uranium remain in the crushed rock when uranium is separated from the ore. That's why Marie Curie found most of the radioactivity left behind in the residues, including all the radium and all the polonium.

Radium

Now, the other main use for radium was as a luminous paint, because of the glow-in-the-dark phenomenon that Marie Curie had observed. Believe it or not, the price of uranium in the 1920s was $100,000 a gram -- and this is using dollars of the twenties! It was a very expensive commodity, but only very little was needed for any given purpose. Some of it was used to make luminous paint, with which they would paint dials so they could be read even in the dark.

Now the young women who painted these things began to get sick. This was first reported by an American dentist called Blum, who said that he had some very young women -- 19 years old, 18 years old, 20 years old -- coming into his dentistry office. Their teeth were falling out, their gums were badly infected and bleeding profusely, they were anemic, their bones were soft, and in some cases their jawbones had spontaneously fractured. Some of them died of severe anemia.

The only thing these women had in common was that they worked in a radium dial painting factory in New Jersey. Blum called this phenomenon "radium jaw". A few years later, the women who had recovered from these symptoms started developing problems in the rest of their skeleton. They suffered weakening of the bone, spontaneous fractures of the hip and of other bones, and growths -- tumors, some of which were cancerous -- in the bones themselves. Now, bone cancer is such an exceedingly rare disease, that there was little doubt that this cancer was caused by exposure to radium.

It was discovered that simply by wetting the tip of the brush in order to get a nice clean figure on the dials, these women were ingesting minute quantities of radium. And that was sufficient to cause all these symptoms. When autopsies were performed on the corpses of these women, doctors discovered that in their entire skeleton there were only a few micrograms of radium. This quantity was so small, that no conventional chemical analysis could detect it. Nevertheless, this tiny amount of radium had distributed itself so thoroughly through their skeleton, that you could take a picture of any one of their bones just by laying it on a photographic plate in a dark room, It is called an auto-radiograph -- that is, an x-ray picture with no x-ray machine.

So this was our first introduction to the harmful effects of even minute quantities of such substances.

By the way, many of the women who survived this phase of the assault later on developed cancers of the head -- cancer of the sinuses, cancer of the soft palate, and other types of head cancers. We now know how these were caused. Remember, radium is radioactive -- even inside the body.

As I told you earlier, when radium atoms disintegrate, they turn into radon gas. So radon gas was being produced inside the bodies of these women. In fact, one test for radium contamination is to check a person's exhaled breath and see if it has radon gas in it; if it does, that person must have radium in his or her body. In the case of the radium dial painters, the radon gas was being produced in the bones, dissolved in the blood, and pumped by the heart up to the head where it collected in the sinus and other cavities. And there it was irradiating the delicate living tissues and causing head cancers.

Read more:
http://ratical.org/radiation/WorldUraniumHearing/GordonEdwards.html#N5

URANIUM: Known Facts and Hidden Dangers

2012-01-07T00:35:00.015-05:00

URANIUM: Known Facts and Hidden Dangers, Part I

invited address by Dr. Gordon Edwards
September 14, 1992

Uranium
What do we know about uranium? Well, uranium is the heaviest naturally occurring element on earth. It is a metal, like all other metals, except that it had no commercial value before the mid-twentieth century. Until the last fifty years it was produced only as a byproduct. Thus the entire history of the mining of uranium has taken place during my lifetime. Moreover, a great deal of it has occurred in my homeland, Canada, which was the first country to produce and process uranium as such.

The first uranium processed by Canada was used to produce nuclear explosives for the atomic bombs dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Indeed, the beginning of the nuclear weapons program marked the beginning of the uranium industry. By 1956, uranium had become the fourth most important export from Canada, after pulp, lumber and wheat; and every ounce of it was used to produce A-bombs and H-bombs for the American -- and, to a lesser extent, the British -- nuclear weapons programs. It was the only use uranium had at that time.

Today, Canada remains the world's largest producer and exporter of uranium, ostensibly for peaceful purposes; that is, as fuel for civilian nuclear reactors. Canada is also one of the very few countries in the world in which uranium mining is currently expanding. In the province of Saskatchewan, there are environmental assessment hearings going on now, this year, having to do with the potential opening of five new uranium mines. This, despite the fact that the price of uranium is lower today than it has ever been. The price has been falling steadily for more than fifteen years, and is now at an all-time low.

I hope that those attending this conference will write to the Prime Minister of Canada (c/o House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0A6) and to the Premier of Saskatchewan (c/o Saskatchewan Legislature, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada) asking them not to continue the expansion of this industry. Why? Because uranium is the deadliest metal on earth. As you will see, the scientific evidence fully bears out this conclusion. I would now like to explain why.

First of all, uranium is radioactive. Secondly, uranium is fissionable. These are two quite different properties, however, and they should not be confused.

Radioactivity
The phenomenon of radioactivity was accidentally discovered in 1896 when Henri Becquerel put a rock in a drawer. The rock contained uranium, and the drawer contained a photographic plate, which was well-wrapped and shielded from the light. Some weeks later, when Becquerel unwrapped and developed the plate, he found rays of light on the photograph emanating exactly from the point of contact where the rock had been resting on it. Being a scientist, he was astounded. He could think of no possible way in which an inert rock could spontaneously be releasing energy -- especially such a penetrating form of energy. Moreover, the energy release had taken place in total darkness, in the absence of any external stimulation -- there was no chemical reaction, no exposure to sunlight, nor anything else. Becquerel had discovered radioactivity.

Marie Curie decided to pursue the mystery further. She got some uranium ore from the Erz mountains, not very far from here. She chemically separated the uranium from the rest of the crushed rock (she had to crush the rock and dissolve it in acid to get the uranium out, which is what we still do today in mining uranium) and she found that even after the uranium had been removed, the crushed rock remained very radioactive -- much more so than the uranium itself. Here was a mystery indeed. Why is it that eighty-five percent of the radioactivity stays behind in the crushed rock?

Starting with many tons of rock, Madame Curie proceeded to separate out all the chemical elements she knew. She couldn't fathom what had gone wrong. But when she returned to the laboratory late at night, she found the beaker glowing brightly in the dark, and she realized that it wasn't empty after all. In this way, Marie Curie discovered two new elements: radium and polonium. We now know these are inevitable byproducts of uranium.

By 1906, all the basic facts of radioactivity were known, except for the central mystery as to "why"; this we do not understand. Indeed, science doesn't really understand why anything is the way it is. All science can do is describe how things behave. Science tells us, for example, that all material things are made up of tiny atoms. The atoms found in most substances are remarkably stable, but in the case of radioactive materials, the atoms are unstable.

But radioactive substances have unstable atoms which can and will explode microscopically, and when they do, they give off a burst of energy. This process is called "radioactive disintegration" or "radioactive decay". When radioactive atoms explode, they give off highly energetic charged particles of two types: alpha and beta. These are particles, they're not invisible rays. They are like pieces of shrapnel from an explosion. And this microscopic shrapnel does great damage because of the high energy of the particles which are given off.

Read more:
http://ratical.org/radiation/WorldUraniumHearing/GordonEdwards.html#N5

Editorial: Postpone uranium decision

2012-01-06T20:47:00.008-05:00

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Virginia needs time to assess all of the reports before it takes the next steps.

Debate over proposed uranium mining in Pittsylvania County became immensely more complicated this week.

The National Academy of Sciences released its long-awaited, third-party study of the proposed mine. The General Assembly cannot lift the moratorium next year and give this and other studies the attention they deserve.

The 302-page report is nuanced and complex. It was neither the optimistic report mine backers wanted nor the slam-dunk condemnations opponents would have liked. It raises sufficient doubts, though, to demand Virginia proceed with caution.

Virginia must decide if it even wants to start down this road. If it does, the implications go beyond near-term job creation into waste containment that must succeed for thousands of years.

This is not a decision to make lightly. Lawmakers and the public need time to digest the report's findings, to hold public discussions with ample citizen involvement and to determine what is acceptable risk. No uranium mine and waste storage is risk-free.

Read more:
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/302667

Locals react to uranium study

2012-01-06T01:01:00.008-05:00

Written by Staff
07:31 am 12/21/11

The National Academy of Sciences released a highly anticipated report on the risks of uranium mining and milling in Virginia Monday, which confirmed this activity would expose Virginians to serious risks of radioactive contamination of water, air, land and farm products.

State law has maintained a nearly 30-year ban on uranium mining. Virginia Uranium, Inc., which wants to establish a uranium mine, mill and waste disposal site in Pittsylvania County, is pushing the General Assembly to lift the ban in 2012, beginning with the drafting of regulations.

Halifax County Town Council representatives Jack Dunavant and William Confroy traveled to Richmond along with members of “We The People” and “Keep The Ban” for the study’s unveiling Monday.

Confroy said although the report was not site specific, “it clearly highlighted many unanswered questions and pointed out tremendous risks.”

The report does not include any site-specific data or make recommendations about whether Virginia should lift the 30-year old ban on uranium mining and milling. However, the report provides ample evidence of the potential for contamination of ground and surface water and highlights the devastating legacy left by the industry, both decades ago and in recent years, he added.

Confroy said he was pleased the report highlighted what the Town of Halifax representatives have been saying all along.

“It’s extremely risky,” Confroy said, adding uranium has not been mined at any other site in such a highly populated area as Coles Hill in Pittsylvania County.

“We need to continue to study this,” he said.

Confroy also pointed out the state did not have the money to do the study, so it had to be funded by Virginia Uranium Inc., the company desiring to mine uranium at Coles Hill.

“If they don’t have money for the study, where will they find money for regulation?” he asked.

Confroy said the worst part about nuclear energy is the mining aspect, describing it as “so, so dangerous.”

Referring to the Town of Halifax and Banister River, Confroy said, “We’re ground zero. This is where all the unwanted particulates will be deposited…at the base of our lake and dam.”

Piedmont Environmental Council President Chris Miller said his group’s initial review of the report confirms that uranium mining would be a dangerous experiment for Virginia.

“The report establishes that neither the mining industry nor federal or state regulators have any experience with uranium mining or milling in climatic and hydrogeological conditions like Virginia’s. The risks of containing huge amounts of waste for thousands of years--especially in a wet climate like Virginia’s--have never been addressed,” Miller said.

“Although Virginia Uranium Inc., seems eager to push for an end to the ban in the 2012 General Assembly Session, The Piedmont Environmental Council hopes that the National Academy of Sciences will be given time to meet its contractual obligations with regard to public outreach and education,” he continued. “It is critical that the public and the legislature are able to fully understand the findings and limitations of this study. Only then will we be able to discuss what it means to lift the ban and if it is even possible to draft regulations that would protect the commonwealth and its citizens.”

Miller said it will likely take months to begin to understand the findings of this lengthy, technical document. But upon an initial scan, the council finds plenty of evidence that supports its long-standing opposition to the proposal.

The Roanoke River Basin Association, a non-profit representing over 70 localities in Virginia and North Carolina, said Monday it hoped the NAS report would provide a definitive answer to the only question that is truly important – is it safe to mine and mill uranium in the Roanoke River basin watershed considering Virginia’s wet climate?

Read more:
http://www.gazettevirginian.com/index.php/news/34-news/4590-locals-react-to-uranium-study

Leave Virginia’s uranium mining ban in place

2012-01-05T00:26:00.007-05:00

Letter to the Editor
Leave Virginia’s uranium mining ban in place
Published: December 26

Regarding the Dec. 20 Metro article “Obstacles remain in quest for uranium”:

Few people I’ve spoken with were aware of the threat uranium development poses to Virginia. This is a reflection of the would-be developers’ political savvy, and it’s deeply troubling, given the risky nature of this experimental development scheme by Virginia Uranium.

Plenty is at risk from operations on the proposed Pittsylvania County site, including potential contamination of drinking water that would affect more than a million residents of Hampton Roads and North Carolina communities; Virginia’s $18 billion tourism industry; and markets for local agricultural products, including wine, milk and the grass-fed beef raised in Pittsylvania County by my family, among others.

No one has identified successful uranium operations in wet, severe climates comparable to that of Southside Virginia. The National Academy of Sciences study on uranium mining at the site leaves too many unknowns. Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) and state legislators must reject this risky experiment with Virginia’s future and leave the state’s moratorium on uranium mining in place.

Joy M. Oakes, Arlington

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/leave-virginias-uranium-mining-ban-in-place/2011/12/22/gIQAHWgHJP_story.html

2012-01-04T20:35:00.004-05:00

Interview with Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR) at the Western Mining Action Network Conference, 2011.

Dr. Edwards addresses the need to strengthen safety standards on uranium mining & radioactive elements in the tailings resulting from mining activities. Dr. Edwards recommends no new uranium mines be licensed until technologies exist allowing for the extraction of the long lived radio nuclides from the ore. Looking at the big picture, Dr. Edwards asserts that uranium mining shouldn't be allowed at all.

Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility CCNR
http://www.ccnr.org/

Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan
http://www.cleangreensask.ca

Press Release: NAS

2012-01-04T00:18:00.002-05:00

Date: Dec. 19, 2011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Report Identifies Health, Environmental Issues, and Best Practices To Mitigate Some Risks if Virginia Lifts Ban on Uranium Mining

WASHINGTON — A number of health and environmental issues and related risks need to be addressed when considering whether to lift the almost 30-year moratorium on uranium mining in Virginia, says a new report from the National Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering.

"Internationally accepted best practices, which include timely and meaningful public participation, are available to mitigate some of the risks involved," said Paul Locke, chair of the committee that wrote the report and associate professor, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. "However, there are still many unknowns."

The committee concluded that if Virginia lifts its moratorium, there are "steep hurdles to be surmounted" before mining and processing could take place within a regulatory setting that appropriately protects workers, the public, and the environment, especially given that the state has no experience regulating mining and processing of the radioactive element.

The study was requested by the Commonwealth of Virginia after owners of a large uranium deposit at Coles Hill in southern Virginia and other groups began in recent years to call for an end to the moratorium. The committee was asked to assess the physical and social context in which uranium mining and processing might occur; national and global uranium markets; technical options and best practices for uranium mining, processing, and reclamation; and potential impacts on public health, worker safety, and the environment. It was also requested to review the state and federal regulatory framework for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.

The committee was not asked to recommend whether uranium mining should be permitted, or to consider the potential benefits to the state were uranium mining to be pursued. It also was not asked to compare the relative risks of uranium mining to the mining of other fuels such as coal.

Read more:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=13266

Radon test kits available as part of National Radon Month

2012-01-03T20:27:00.002-05:00

http://www.epa.gov/radon/radontest.html

Paige Fieldsted - Daily Herald | Posted: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 12:15 am

is colorless, odorless and the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United States. The radioactive gas radon is released as uranium in soil and rocks decays and has been linked to more than 20,000 lung cancer deaths in the United State each year. But most people are unaware of the dangers radon poses to them and their families.
"It comes from the ground and can be anywhere," said Andrea Jensen with the Utah County Health Department. "Old homes, new homes, small homes or mansions can all have high levels of radon in them."
Radon is non-toxic when outside or in open, well-ventilated places but the gas can seep into homes through cracks in the foundation and get trapped in the enclosed space. The health department says winter months are the best time to test for radon because most people have their windows and doors closed.
As part of National Radon Awareness month, which begins in January, the health department is selling radon test kits for just $10.
"Just $10 can save your life," Jensen said. "Radon is one of those things people don't know about and don't think about."
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, only smoking causes more lung cancer deaths a year than radon. Dr. Wallace Akerley, director of thoracic oncology at Huntsman Cancer Institute, says lung cancer caused by radon is often not discovered until the cancer is in later stages.
"Non-smokers are typically diagnosed at a higher stage of cancer," Akerley said. "Both the doctor and patient ignore the symptoms. If you are a non-smoker we give you the benefit of the doubt and think it is likely pneumonia before we start testing for cancer."
Akerley also says that testing for radon is a simple but effective way to prevent getting lung cancer.
"The big issue to me is it is fixable," Akerley said. "I do test my house and we should all be doing it."
Testing for radon takes two to three days but requires little effort. The test kit is opened in the lowest occupied level of the home and left for several days before being sealed and sent to the lab. If the test comes back with high levels of radon, there are options for families needing to get rid of the gas. A mitigation system consisting of a pipe running from the foundation up through the ceiling to ventilate the gas can be installed. The system can cost upwards of $1,000 but Jensen says the cost is worth it.
"It is cheaper and less painful than chemotherapy," she said.

Read more: http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/radon-test-kits-available-as-part-of-national-radon-month/article_ae1ee9be-b11f-5718-a2de-072b367dff9f.html#ixzz1hyfIJp6k

Read more: http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/radon-test-kits-available-as-part-of-national-radon-month/article_ae1ee9be-b11f-5718-a2de-072b367dff9f.html#ixzz1hyf39WDF

Who will pay long-term costs of uranium mining?

2012-01-03T00:59:00.007-05:00

Posted: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 9:30 am

After reading the entire Chmura report, I can't see where all of the rejoicing about this uranium mine is appropriate.

Even in a perfect world where nothing ever goes wrong, this report details plenty of major problems that will accompany this endeavor.

From increased traffic accidents, to air pollution that will cover over a five-mile radius as well as real estate value losses for the 1,350 citizens that live in this radius, this will be the new reality.

Without apology, Virginia Uranium and those that would stand to profit from this venture, would reap benefits from the uncompensated losses of more citizens than would benefit from this mine.

Reading the entire report reveals not just the rosy glow of profit, but some apocalyptic predictions for many of the homes, businesses and citizens of Pittsylvania County.

Perhaps robbing these citizens of property value and quality of life with a little increased cancer risk as a bonus is a small price to pay for the increased prosperity of a couple hundred employees in the Chatham Labor Shed, (basically all of the counties surrounding Pittsylvania), but is this really fair?

Is this hypothetical profit based on peak uranium prices from a few years back realistic given the current price and current demand? Read the report - No!

One glaring omission is lack of mention of insurance costs. Many taxpayers in the area are self-employed farmers; they pay their own insurance out of pocket for home, health, auto and business.

From an actuarial standpoint, in the shadow of this mine with guaranteed increases in respiratory disease and increased traffic accidents and property devaluation, even in the best-case scenario, there is no way any insurance company would offer affordable policies to such a high-risk population.

Who is going to underwrite health policies for the VUI workers at the mine? Is this another bond issue for this company?

This venture is touted by Virginia Energy as securing a future energy source and prosperity independent from the American unfriendly world market.

Sorry, but Canadian-owned Virginia Energy is traded not in an American exchange, but exclusively in Canada.

Half of Virginia Uranium (also traded on the Canadian exchange),is owned by a multitude of international mining interests that have no interest in American well being whatsoever.

Some of these companies are repeat offenders still in courts trying to evade their culpability in creating toxic Superfund sites that U.S. citizens (that's you and me, brother) are paying to clean up.

Read page 109 of the Chmura report. After our friends at VUI get this mine going, they will most likely cash out on the whole project, leaving it in the hands of some of the most notorious, unrepentant polluters this country has ever seen. Take the money and run, laughing all the way.

Back here in the formerly bucolic Pittsylvania cowshed, with our homes devalued, unable to obtain health insurance as we gasp our last polluted breath, our livestock and crops worthless, unwanted by the market, our tax base of cherished private boarding schools closed, who will pay for this devastation?

Not the piddly few million bucks in tax revenue from this mine that wrought this, not the squeezed-dry folks that fell victim to this great idea.

The billions of dollars it will take to plaster over this poisoned hole will never make this area whole again, but it will come from generations of future taxpayers.

Read the report - all of it.

Kay Patrick
Gretna

http://www.wpcva.com/opinion/chathamstartribune.com/opinion/article_4cf5c548-2660-11e1-a8d9-0019bb2963f4.html

Halifax group joins coalition to keep moratorium on uranium mining

2012-01-02T20:04:00.003-05:00

Written by Staff
07:52 am 12/28/11

A group of citizens from several different businesses and professions joined forces Tuesday to form The Virginia Coalition with the primary goal of keeping the uranium moratorium in Virginia from coming to a vote in the General Assembly.

Virginia Uranium Inc. has proposed a major mining operation at Coles Hill, near Chatham. In order to proceed, Virginia Uranium seeks to overturn a 30-year state moratorium on uranium mining in Virginia.

The long awaited studies and reports on potential uranium mining in Virginia are complete, and they do not indicate that uranium mining can be done in Virginia without serious health risks.

According to Virginia Coalition spokesperson Andrew Lester “When our citizens and legislators read the reports, they will come away with the same conclusions as our coalition members. Uranium mining poses a dangerous threat to the health, safety and welfare of our people.”

Founding coalition members include Virginia House Delegate James Edmunds, former Delegate Ted Bennett, retired NASCAR driver Ward Burton, Chris Lumsden, CEO of Halifax Regional Health System, Nancy Pool, president of the Halifax County Chamber of Commerce, John Cannon, chairman of the Halifax County Industrial Development Authority and a member of the Virginia Tobacco Commission, local business owner Tom Raab of Electric Service Company, and Lisa Kipps-Brown, owner of Glerin Business Resources.

The coalition has formed an affiliation with the Roanoke River Basin Association, a Danville based 501(c) 3 non-profit.

For 66 years the RRBA has sought the wise use and protection of the water resources in this region and the coalition feels their mission and reputation makes them an ideal partner, according to Lester.

The coalition has an up and running website, www.readthereports.org featuring videos, maps and documents as well as downloadable versions of all the prominent reports on uranium mining including the National Academy of Sciences report.

The website also features the Roanoke River Basin Association sponsored assessment by Dr. Robert Moran, the only known site specific study performed on Coles Hill. The website will have easily accessible excerpts from the mining studies, particularly on health issues.

Lester, currently associated with the Roanoke River Basin Association, has agreed to be executive director of Virginia Coalition and will be coordinating the group’s efforts to educate the General Assembly and the citizens around the state.

Read more:
http://www.gazettevirginian.com/index.php/news/34-news/4624-halifax-group-joins-coalition-to-keep-moratorium-on-uranium-mining

Subject: Thirst

2012-01-02T00:49:00.005-05:00

Subject: Thirst

Please review the following info: Thirst at link below:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=1344f031ff645584&mt=application/vnd.ms-powerpoint&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui%3D2%26ik%3D87aab9e94c%26view%3Datt%26th%3D1344f031ff645584%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dsafe%26zw&sig=AHIEtbRTyR5atKvFAPL1LhUs7gb8EtdU1w&pli=1

Happy New Year - Stay Safe

2012-01-01T21:20:00.000-05:00

Uranium mining study

2012-01-01T19:26:00.006-05:00

Posted at 12:00 AM Dec. 27, 2011

A scientific panel's report that warns of "steep hurdles" for uranium mining in Virginia is grist for the General Assembly as it considers lifting a three-decade ban.

The legislature commissioned the study by the National Academy of Sciences because Virginia Uranium Inc. has proposed opening a 119-million-pound uranium deposit in Pittsylvania County.

Although the report is silent on whether the moratorium should be lifted -- its mandate precluded that conclusion -- it cites many concerns broached by mining opponents.

Specifically, the panel pointed to the impact of mining, processing and reclamation on surface and groundwater, soil and air. Unlike the dry Western states where there is uranium mining, Virginia has a high water table and heavy rainfall. Extreme natural events, such as August's 5.8 magnitude earthquake, also need to be considered. And the report noted that disposal sites can be sources of contamination for "thousands of years."

http://www.nvdaily.com/opinion/2011/12/uranium-mining-study.php

New group - including former NASCAR driver - wants to continue state uranium mining ban

2011-12-31T04:50:00.001-05:00

The Associated Press

8:40 a.m. EST, December 29, 2011
DANVILLE, Va. (AP)—

A new coalition with some familiar names has been created to keep Virginia's 30-year ban on uranium mining in place.

The Gazette Virginian reports that The Virginia Coalition includes House Del. James Edwards, former Del. Ted Bennett and retired NASCAR driver Ward Burton.

The coalition also includes Andrew Lester of the Roanoke River Basin Association. He says the association believes a raft of reports released in recent weeks all lead to the conclusion that uranium mining would be a threat to the health and safety of Virginians.

Read more:
http://www.wdbj7.com/news/wdbj7-new-group-including-former-nascar-driver--wants-to-continue-state-uranium-mining-ban-20111229,0,4456496.story

New Web Site: Read the Reports

2011-12-30T20:12:00.012-05:00

Comment: Please visit the great blog: Read the Reports: http://www.readthereports.org/index.php

The risks to our health are too great to rush the vote!

Uranium has never been mined in Virginia, and our wet climate presents a totally different set of risks than those in the more arid Western US.

Virginia is unprepared to regulate the uranium mining industry and inadequate oversight would pollute Virginia for many generations.

http://www.readthereports.org/index.php

Pittsylvania County farmer takes uranium mining debate to heart

2011-12-30T19:17:00.001-05:00

The farmer's legacy could be in danger if mining and milling is permitted about two miles from his farm

Justin Ward
Reporter
1:21 p.m. EST, December 29, 2011
CHATHAM, Va.—

Uranium mining is likely to be the hot button issue when Virginia lawmakers begin work in a couple of weeks up in Richmond.

A proposal to lift a statewide ban on the mining of the radioactive mineral is polarizing and personally impactful.

Consider the case of a 200-year-old farm near a proposed uranium mine site in Pittsylvania County.

The 104 acre farm has been in farmer Byron Motley's family for seven generations.

But keeping his property up to par isn't what's waking him up in the middle of the night, it's worrying whether he'll get to keep it.

Motley and his family live about two miles from the proposed uranium mine site at Coles Hill in Pittsylvania County.

Part of his property falls under, what recent studies have called, a contamination or condemned zone.

According to one of those studies, mining and milling uranium can drastically lower underground water levels and could place by-products in well water.

Underground water is the only source available to Motley and his neighbors.

"I don't know where I could go and call it home. This is been my home all my life," Motley said.

He's not the only person that the proposed site could impact.

"It's a lot of memories, a lot of heritage and something I would like to preserve and have for the future," Motley said.

Read more:
http://www.wdbj7.com/news/wdbj7-pittsylvania-county-farmer-takes-uranium-mining-debate-to-heart-20111229,0,6827627.story

Please review the great interview:

http://www.wdbj7.com/videogallery/67052579/News/Local-farmer-will-be-impacted-by-uranium-mining#pl-66745839

Leave Virginia's uranium mining ban in place

2011-12-30T06:39:00.012-05:00

Letter to the Editor

Published: December 26

Regarding the Dec. 20 Metro article “Obstacles remain in quest for uranium”:

Few people I’ve spoken with were aware of the threat uranium development poses to Virginia. This is a reflection of the would-be developers’ political savvy, and it’s deeply troubling, given the risky nature of this experimental development scheme by Virginia Uranium.

Plenty is at risk from operations on the proposed Pittsylvania County site, including potential contamination of drinking water that would affect more than a million residents of Hampton Roads and North Carolina communities; Virginia’s $18 billion tourism industry; and markets for local agricultural products, including wine, milk and the grass-fed beef raised in Pittsylvania County by my family, among others.

No one has identified successful uranium operations in wet, severe climates comparable to that of Southside Virginia.

The National Academy of Sciences study on uranium mining at the site leaves too many unknowns.

Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) and state legislators must reject this risky experiment with Virginia’s future and leave the state’s moratorium on uranium mining in place.

Joy M. Oakes, Arlington

Read more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/leave-virginias-uranium-mining-ban-in-place/2011/12/22/gIQAHWgHJP_story.html

A turn in the road? General Assembly to weigh pros, cons of uranium mining

2011-12-29T13:01:00.025-05:00

December 27, 2011 12:20 AM
Jessica Sabbath

Editor’s note: This story is part of Virginia Business’ look at the upcoming General Assembly session in its January issue. The issue, which will be available online on Dec. 29

Not everyone agrees uranium mining would be such a good deal for Southern Virginia.

Phillip and Deborah Lovelace also decided to raise cattle during their retirement at their family farm, located about five miles from the uranium deposits. They worry about what a uranium mine would mean for their well water, air quality and health. “We came back to the family farm to retire here, and we hopefully can pass it on to our children,” says Deborah Lovelace. “My youngest daughter’s about to go to college, but I wouldn’t want to raise children here [if the mine were built].”

Neighbors aren’t the only voice of opposition. Environmentalists and advocacy organizations from around the state are fighting to prevent uranium mining from being allowed in Virginia, arguing it would threaten drinking water, pose public health risks and degrade quality of life.

After receiving two in-depth science and socioeconomic studies on uranium mining in December, the General Assembly may consider this year whether to lift a 30-year moratorium on uranium mining.

So, instead of the retirement he envisioned, Coles runs a company that wants to mine and process uranium deposits worth an estimated $7 billion at today’s prices, leading what is likely to be one of the most contentious battles in this year’s General Assembly.

Eventually four state governmental bodies (including the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission) determined in 1984 the moratorium should be lifted if recommendations from the state’s Uranium Task Force for permitting and regulations were put in place. The issue was dropped, however, when in the wake of the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island reactor in Pennsylvania, the U.S. nuclear energy industry stalled. Marline gave up its plans as the price of uranium sank.

A study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is expected to be a key guide for legislators as they consider whether to lift the moratorium. The 302-page report did not recommend whether or not to allow mining, but it concluded that Virginia faces “steep hurdles”

The Roanoke River Basin Association came to a different conclusion. “The NAS study does not demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that uranium mining in Virginia’s wet climate will pose absolutely no threat to public health and safety,” says Andrew Lester, executive director of the association. “In fact, the study lists potentially insurmountable challenges in addressing the technological and regulatory problems with uranium mining in Virginia.”

If the moratorium is lifted, the state would create a regulatory framework for uranium mining, and Virginia Uranium could begin the years-long process of seeking the required local zoning approvals and state and federal permits.

Opponents believe legislators don’t have enough time to adequately examine the NAS study before this year’s General Assembly session. “One of our many concerns is that the industry is trying to push this forward without regard to the fact that the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission hasn’t been able to have a public outreach process,” says Calle Jaffe, a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center.

The opposition

A host of environmental and government groups (such as the Virginia Municipal League and the Virginia Farm Bureau) and localities either are strongly opposed to uranium mining or at least want the General Assembly to delay consideration of the issue.

Historically, the uranium industry has a poor track record of protecting the environment and public health. Geologists argue that technology and science have improved enough to allow uranium to be mined with low risk. “I know from past experience we can extract resources from the earth with minimal exposure to the environment and public health,” says Robert Bodnar, a geology professor at Virginia Tech who has been involved in mining for more than 30 years.

Another scientist, however, believes the Coles Hill deposits would likely contaminate the local groundwater.

The Roanoke River Basin Association asked Robert Moran, a Colorado hydrologist, to conduct an analysis of Coles Hill. Using current technical reports from Virginia Uranium and a Marline report from the 1980s, Moran said that conditions such as naturally permeable rock, seismic activity and degradation of liners of tailing containments could create seepage into local water supplies.

The containment of tailings, the remnants from the uranium mining process, is among the biggest concerns about the industry.

The potential threat to water supplies has caught the attention of Virginia’s largest city, Virginia Beach. The city spent $600,000 on two studies to determine the effect of the breaching of tailings containment facilities on its water supply, which is downstream from the proposed uranium sites. The study concluded it would take two years for contaminants to be cleaned from the water under this scenario. “The [city council’s] current position is that there are just too many studies coming out this month or early next year, and there’s simply no time for the public or the city to properly consider these studies for any action,” says Tom Leahy, public utilities director for Virginia Beach.

Cotter Corp.’s uranium mill near Canon City, Colo., provides a cautionary tale on the importance of properly managing tailings. The mill, which operated off and on between 1958 and 2005, received many citations for air and water contamination and was declared a Superfund site in 1984. In 2005, a state regulator determined that even a tailings pond built under current regulations was determined unusable. In 2009, Colorado required Cotter to post a financial bond of $43 million to help pay for cleanup of the site, but the company so far has paid only $20.8 million of that amount.

But Moran says another major issue is that most of the uranium mining data today do not come from independent sources. “The modern operations are clearly done at a higher quality level than historic ones,” he says. “The bigger problem is that the information that’s generated from the projects — even the modern ones — is largely controlled by the corporations.”

Environmentalists have major concerns about Virginia’s ability to regulate uranium mines. “Even the best regulations don’t necessarily prove they will be able to protect us completely,” says Lester of the Roanoke River Basin Association.

Another concern stems from the fact that tailings remain for thousands of years. “Companies will do a reasonably good job while the operations are active, but once they shut down, who’s going take care of the site forever?” asks Moran.

Study shows hurdles with uranium mining

The National Academy of Sciences’ report determined Virginia faces “steep hurdles” in establishing a regulatory framework to protect employees, public health and the environment if uranium mining is allowed.

The study did not include a blanket recommendation on uranium mining in Virginia but identified health and environmental risks such as radiation exposure and groundwater contamination. The report said these risks could be reduced by implementing industry best practices and establishing a stringent monitoring system.

One of the key obstacles in regulating uranium mines is lack of experience on the state and federal level. Conventional mining is a small industry in the U.S. and currenlty done only in the West. The report recommended the state consider the entire lifecycle of a mine or mill during the planning phase, including post-mining monitoring.

Containment of uranium tailings, the solids produced in processing, is one of the industry’s most significant environmental health concerns. Although technology has improved, data do not exist yet on the long-term effectiveness of modern procedures for containing tailings, the report said.

Read more:

http://www.virginiabusiness.com/index.php/news/article/a-turn-in-the-road-general-assembly-to-weigh-pros-cons-of-uranium-mining/315890/

Exposure Pathways from Uranium Mining and Waste Disposal

2011-12-29T05:06:00.004-05:00

Unless properly managed for long-term stability and security, mining wastes and milling tailings from radioactive ores present serious threats to human health. through their potential to leak these radioactive materials. Unfortunately, uranium mining in low- and middle-income countries is often not regulated with the type of oversight available in high-income countries, and production rather than safety is often the priority. In some instances, tailings have even been used in home construction.

Although tailings often have only low-grade radioactivity, they can be dangerous because of the large quantities that are stockpiled in small areas. Additionally, water that is pumped away from the mine during operations can contaminate local surface waters. Proximity to radioactive materials—both waste dumps and infrastructure built from mining wastes—can result in exposure to Gamma particles and Neutron radiation.

Contamination of food and water sources can occur from dust transported by wind from uranium mine sites and waste deposits. One study in Kazakhstan demonstrated that wind had transported dust particles contaminated with uranium and thorium from a uranium-mining site to plants outside the city of Aktau. [113] Other studies have shown how—because of the long half-lives of many of these radioactive materials—even legacy uranium mines can lead to exposure through food crops and contaminated agricultural soils. [114]

http://www.worstpolluted.org/projects_reports/display/83

Radionuclides: Common Exposure Pathways and Health Risks

2011-12-28T05:00:00.009-05:00

Radionuclides can be released into the environment through accidents, poor waste disposal, or other means. Some levels of radiation are naturally present in surface and ground water, but other degrees of radiation exposure come from contact with rocks and soil that have been contaminated with the artificially produced radionuclides mentioned above, such as radon. Often, contaminated soil and rock are the by-products of wastes and tailings from mineral extraction sites, where ores such as uranium are taken for their radioactive properties and industrial uses.

Once elements such as uranium have been processed in sites such as nuclear reactors, radiation exposure can also occur through leaks and industrial failures. Exposure to radiation can also occur when radionuclides are used in excess during medical treatments. These levels of exposure and the effects they produce are called radiation poisoning. Some major pathways to commonly encountered hazardous radionuclides are through inhalation (uranium and radon), food contamination (radium), and occupational exposure at mining and processing sites. [104]

Acute health effects due to a large radiation exposure begin with nausea, vomiting, and headaches. With increased exposure a person may also experience fatigue, weakness, fever, hair loss, dizziness disorientation, diarrhea, blood in stool,low blood pressure, and ultimately death. Chronic and long-term effects may also occur.

Uranium is known as a radioactive toxicant capable of damaging the kidneys and genetic code, which can result in health problems passed to the following generations. Radon is a human lung carcinogen and particularly damaging to miners who extract ores containing radioactive elements. Radon is also the second leading cause of lung cancer death in uranium miners. [105] [106] Studies also show that long-term exposure to radon leads to an elevated risk of leukemia. [107] Chronic exposure to radium through the inhalation pathway can lead to leukopenia, a decrease in the number of white blood cells, which places an exposed individual at an increased risk for contracting infections. [108]

When ionizing radiation strikes an organism’s cells, it may injure the cells. If radiation affects a significant number of cells, it can eventually lead to cancer. At extremely high doses, this type of exposure can cause dealth. In general, there is no safe level of radiation exposure. Individuals exposed to non-lethal doses may experience changes in blood chemistry, as well as nausea and fatigue. Children are particularly vulnerable, as radiation has an effect on the cellular level. As children grow, they divide more and more cells, and more opportunities exist for radiation to interfere with the development process—in terms of fetal development, this can result in smaller head or brain size, poorly formed eyes, abnormal growth, and mental retardation. [109]

Read more:
http://www.worstpolluted.org/projects_reports/display/83

Ionizing radiation

2011-12-27T05:31:00.011-05:00

Ionizing Radiation in our Environment

Radiation has always been a natural part of our environment. Natural radioactive sources in the soil, water and air contribute to our exposure to ionizing radiation, as well as man-made sources resulting from mining and use of naturally radioactive materials in power generation, nuclear medicine, consumer products, military and industrial applications.

Radiation accidents and emergencies

Although the likelihood of a major accident at a nuclear facility is low, should such an accident occur, protective actions near the facility and monitoring of radiation at longer distances would need to be taken to protect the public. Other radiation emergencies (for example, a radiation source appears in the human environment, patients undergoing radiotherapy treatment are accidentally overexposed) normally affect only a few individuals, but they occur much more frequently (several times each year). More recently the threat of possible terrorist attacks using radioactive materials or nuclear warheads has become prominent.

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/en/

What is Ionizing Radiation?

2011-12-26T08:23:00.006-05:00

Introduction - Waves and Particles

The purpose of this section is to provide information on the basics of ionizing radiation for everyone.

Energy emitted from a source is generally referred to as radiation. Examples include heat or light from the sun, microwaves from an oven, X rays from an X-ray tube, and gamma rays from radioactive elements

Ionizing Radiation

Ionizing radiation is radiation with enough energy so that during an interaction with an atom, it can remove tightly bound electrons from the orbit of an atom, causing the atom to become charged or ionized.

Here we are concerned with only one type of radiation, ionizing radiation, which occurs in two forms - waves or particles. More information on Non-Ionizing radiation.

Forms of electromagnetic radiation. These differ only in frequency and wave length.
Heat waves
Radiowaves
Infrared light
Visible light
Ultraviolet light
X rays
Gamma rays

Longer wave length, lower frequency waves (heat and radio) have less energy than shorter wave length, higher frequency waves (X and gamma rays). Not all electromagnetic (EM) radiation is ionizing. Only the high frequency portion of the electromagnetic spectrum which includes X rays and gamma rays is ionizing.

Waves

Most of the more familiar types of electromagnetic radiation (e.g. visible light, radio waves) exhibit “wave-like” behavior in their interaction with matter (e.g. diffraction patterns, transmission and detection of radio signals). The best way to think of electromagnetic radiation is a wave packet called a photon. Photons are chargeless bundles of energy that travel in a vacuum at the velocity of light, which is 300 000 km/sec.

Particulate

Specific forms of ionizing radiation:
Particulate radiation, consisting of atomic or subatomic particles (electrons, protons, etc.) which carry energy in the form of kinetic energy or mass in motion.

Electromagnetic radiation, in which energy is carried by oscillating electrical and magnetic fields traveling through space at the speed of light.

Alpha particles and beta particles are considered directly ionizing because they carry a charge and can, therefore, interact directly with atomic electrons through coulombic forces (i.e. like charges repel each other; opposite charges attract each other).

The neutron is an indirectly ionizing particle. It is indirectly ionizing because it does not carry an electrical charge. Ionization is caused by charged particles, which are produced during collisions with atomic nuclei.

The third type of ionizing radiation includes gamma and X rays, which are electromagnetic, indirectly ionizing radiation. These are indirectly ionizing because they are electrically neutral (as are all electromagnetic radiations) and do not interact with atomic electrons through coulombic forces.

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/about/what_is_ir/en/index1.html

2011-12-25T05:21:00.000-05:00

Speed-bump device converts traffic energy to electricity

2011-12-24T03:21:00.000-05:00

November 9, 2011 by Nancy Owano

A Maryland company, New Energy Technologies, has devised that kind of speed-bump device, which the company likens to a rumble strip, that harvests kinetic energy from vehicles and converts the energy into electricity.

New Energy’s MotionPower Express system captures the unused kinetic energy of vehicles at points where they are required to slow down or come to a stop.

New Energy has ambitions to see its MotionPower Express devices become a part of the toll booths, rest areas, parking lots, airport arrival and departure areas, city lighting systems, zones in other places where traffic should be slowing down—scenarios that can benefit from a greener approach to energy and electricity cost savings.

New Energy has been testing its technology for over a year. The company recently got a boost in publicity by partnering with the city of Roanoke in Virginia to put its MotionPower Express system to the test. According to the company and the city, that test, which was carried out late last month, was successful. Roanoke tested the device that generated energy when vehicles drove over it.

MotionPower Express is suited for installation where vehicles are traveling faster than 15 mph and are slowing-down before stopping, including parking lots, border crossings, exit ramps, neighborhoods with traffic calming zones, rest areas, toll booths, and travel plazas.

The installation at the Roanoke Civic Center was during a busy time when the center was hosting a gun show and circus. A total of 580 cars passed over the rumble strip in six hours.

Reports claim this traffic over this amount of time generated enough electricity to power an average U.S. home for a day. In a commercial context, the traffic over a six hour period was claimed to produce enough electricity for a 150 square-foot electronic billboard or marquee for a day.

New Energy Technologies has been field-testing MotionPower for over a year. In 2009, they conducted a field test at a Burger King in Hillside, New Jersey.

Read more:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-speed-bump-device-traffic-energy-electricity.html

19 Easy Home Winterization Projects

2011-12-23T04:49:00.000-05:00

Unless you live in Florida or some other similar balmy climate, you have probably noticed that it is getting COLD outside. Brrrrrr.
So, for us in the Northern Hemisphere, that means that winter is coming (or is here).

And that means that heating bills will be going up.

So what to do?

Well, for 19 suggestions regarding how to winterize things around your house or apartment, check out link:

http://www.thedailygreen.com/green-homes/latest/winterize-home-tips-energy-461008?link=rel&dom=yah_green&tpc=&src=syn&con=art&mag=tdg

Top Officials Tour Electronic Waste Recycler

2011-12-22T03:53:00.000-05:00

The Federal Government Highlights Economic Benefits of Electronics Recycling

Top Officials Tour Electronic Waste Recycler

Contact: John Martin, (212) 637-3662, martin.johnj@epa.gov

(New York, N.Y. – November 10, 2011) Officials from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. General Services Administration toured e-Green Management of Islip Terrace, New York to highlight the environmental, public health and economic benefits of recycling electronics. The EPA and GSA are partners in a “National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship,” which commits the federal government to promoting the recycling of electronics and advancing a domestic market for electronics recycling that will protect public health, prevent pollution and create jobs.

“The growing electronics recycling industry has the potential to create new economic and environmental opportunities,” said EPA Regional Administrator Judith A. Enck. “Our work with businesses like e-Green Management means that more of our nation’s electronics will be handled responsibly, and more jobs will be created. I commend e-Green Management for their work.”

"The federal government is the nation's largest consumer of electronics and GSA can and will ensure that it becomes the most responsible user of these items," said GSA Regional Administrator Denise L. Pease. "Our efforts in this region alone already keep 1300 tons or 49% of office and building waste out of landfills. Through GSA's programs for reuse, recycling and proper disposal of e-waste, the federal government can lead by example and, at the same time, help promote job growth in this emerging industry. Supporting small businesses who continue to generate jobs and strengthen our economy is a priority of President Barack Obama."

Every year, Americans generate almost 2.5 million tons of used electronics, which are made from valuable resources such as precious metals and rare earth materials, as well as plastic and glass. From computers and cell phones, to portable communication and music devices, the U.S. is a global leader in designing and developing new and improved electronic technologies. The responsible management of electronics provides an opportunity to promote economic development and jobs by developing a strong domestic electronics recycling market while preventing pollution.

The National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship includes four overarching goals:

· Build incentives for the design of greener electronics

· Increase the safe management and handling of used electronics

· Reduce harm from U.S. exports of e-waste and improve the safe handling of used electronics in developing countries

· Ensure that the federal government expands recycling of equipment purchased by the federal government

Under this strategy, GSA will ensure that all electronics used by the federal government are reused or recycled properly. In addition, EPA and GSA will promote development of new environmental performance standards for categories of electronic products not covered by current standards. Several federal agencies will work together to identify methods to move federal agencies toward reuse and recycling.

A key component of the strategy includes the use of certified recyclers and increasing the safe and effective management and handling of used electronics. There are two existing domestic third-party certification recycling entities, the responsible recycling, or R2, and E-Steward certifications. The electronics recycling industry is increasingly using these certification programs. Certified recyclers are regularly audited to ensure that electronics are recycled in a manner that is safe for human health and the environment.

Founded in 2007, e-Green Management is part of the R2 certification program. The company recycles used computers, color TVs, cell phones, printers and fax machines, in addition to batteries and fluorescent bulbs. E-Green Management is planning to expand the number of full-time employees of the company within the next two years.

For more information on the EPA and industry collaboration: http://www.epa.gov/electronicsstrategy

More information on GSA’s electronic stewardship goals and promoting federal agencies’ purchasing Environmentally Preferable Products: http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/234565

Follow EPA Region 2 on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/eparegion2 and visit our Facebook page, http://www.facebook.com/eparegion2.

NAS Meeting

2011-12-21T05:57:00.011-05:00

By STEVE SZKOTAK
The Associated Press
1:33 p.m. EST, December 19, 2011
RICHMOND, Va. (AP)—

A highly anticipated National Academy of Sciences report on uranium mining concludes that Virginia must overcome "steep hurdles" before it can assure that a rich deposit of the radioactive ore can be safely mined and processed.

The 290-page report released Monday is expected to guide the 2012 General Assembly if it considers ending a 30-year ban on uranium mining.

The report does not recommend whether the ban be lifted or remain in place, but makes clear the state must address a number of environmental and public safety issues before mining can occur.

http://www.wdbj7.com/news/wdbj7-uranium-mining-report-released-20111219,0,4606023.story

NAS report:
http://www.scribd.com/full/76073399?access_key=key-1vwh05dgi950nb0jn45d

7 Of The Dirtiest Surfaces In North America

2011-12-21T04:43:00.000-05:00

The Huffington Post First Posted: 10/28/11 08:35 AM ET Updated: 10/28/11 02:17 PM ET

Ever wondered about the amount of bacteria on a public surface? You may finally have an answer. According to a report released by consumer product company Kimberly-Clark, gas pump handles and mailbox handles are some of the dirtiest surfaces in America.

The likelihood for illnesses to transfer from the objects that people use every day like ATMs and parking meters is eye-opening," said Brad Reynolds of Kimberly-Clark Professional's Healthy Workplace Project.

The solution? Just wash and dry your hands more often.

Check out our slideshow of some of America's dirtiest surfaces. The numbers indicate the percentage of surveyed items that had ATP levels of 300 or more. Seventy one percent of gas pump handles, for example, had ATP levels of 300 or more

Read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/28/dirtiest-surfaces-america_n_1031168.html

NAS Report Validates Major Environmental, Health Concerns Raised by Uranium Mining Opponents

2011-12-20T11:54:00.000-05:00

Press Release December 19, 2011

More Info:Uranium Mining - A Risky Experiment
NAS Report Validates Major Environmental, Health Concerns Raised by Uranium Mining Opponents

Cale Jaffe, Senior Attorney, 434-977-4090
In Partnership With:Piedmont Environmental Council - Dan Holmes, 571-213-4250

Richmond, VA – The long-awaited report issued by the National Academy of Sciences today echoes numerous pitfalls with potential uranium mining, milling and waste disposal in the Commonwealth that many concerned Virginians have expressed in past months.

The 300-page report was commissioned by the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission and is part of an ongoing contract between the commission and NAS that includes a public outreach and public meeting period over the next five months. The report does not make any recommendations about whether Virginia should or should not allow uranium mining, but raises significant environmental and public health concerns.

Read the National Academy of Sciences report here: http://dls.virginia.gov/commissions/cec.htm?x=std

State law has maintained a nearly 30-year ban on uranium mining. Virginia Uranium, Inc., which wants to establish a uranium mine, mill, and waste disposal site in Pittsylvania County, is pushing the General Assembly to lift the ban in 2012, beginning with the drafting of regulations.

"This is a huge validation for many of the core concerns that we have been raising," said Cale Jaffe, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. "As the report highlights, a uranium mine or processing facility could be subject to an uncontrolled release as a result of flood, hurricane, or earthquake. In Virginia, we've experienced all of those extreme events just this year."

"The report highlights the difficulty of storing radioactive waste for thousands of years, given Virginia's climate, geology and population density. " said Dan Holmes, Director of State Policy for the Piedmont Environmental Council. "We are now more convinced that this would be a dangerous experiment in Virginia."

Among the cautionary points found by the NAS study committee:

A HUGE RISK - ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: "Furthermore, Virginia is subject to relatively frequent storms that produce intense rainfall. It is questionable whether currently-engineered tailings repositories could be expected to prevent erosion and surface and groundwater contamination for as long as 1,000 years. Natural events such as hurricanes, earthquakes, intense rainfall, or drought could lead to the release of contaminants if facilities are not designed and constructed to withstand such events, or if they fail to perform as designed."

SEVERE CONTAMINATION RISKS EXIST: "Moreover, in a hydrologically active environment such as Virginia, with relatively frequent tropical and convective storms producing intense rainfall, it is questionable whether currently-engineered tailings repositories could be expected to prevent erosion and surface and groundwater contamination for 1,000 years. There are many reports in the literature of releases from improperly disposed tailings and their environmental effects."

A HIGH STAKES GAMBLE: "A mine or processing facility could also be subject to uncontrolled releases of radioactive materials as a result of human error or an extreme event such as a flood, fire, or earthquake."

ADVERSE IMPACTS FOR SOUTHSIDE AGRICULTURE: "Exposure could also occur from the release of contaminated water, or by leaching of radioactive materials into surface or groundwater from uranium tailings or other waste materials, where they could eventually end up in drinking water supplies or could accumulate in the food chain, eventually ending up in the meat, fish, or milk produced in the area."

A HIGH STAKES GAMBLE: "Uranium tailings present a significant potential source of radioactive contamination for thousands of years ... because monitoring of tailings management sites has only been carried out for a short period, monitoring data are insufficient to assess the long-term effectiveness of tailings management facilities designed and constructed according to modern best practices."

CURENT U.S. REGULATIONS ARE INSUFFICIENT: "The decay products of uranium (e.g., 230-Th, 226 Ra) provide a constant source of radiation in uranium tailings for thousands of years, substantially outlasting the current U.S. regulations for oversight of processing facility tailings."

CURRENT U.S REGULATIONS ARE INSUFFICIENT: "The United States federal government has only limited recent experience regulating conventional uranium processing and reclamation of uranium mining and processing facilities. Because almost all uranium mining and processing to date has taken place in parts of the United States that have a negative water balance (dry climates with low rainfall), federal agencies have limited experience applying laws and regulations in positive water balance (wet climates with medium to high rainfall) situations."

CURRENT U.S. REGULATIONS ARE INSUFFICIENT: "The United States' federal government has only limited experience regulating conventional uranium mining, processing, and reclamation over the past two decades, with little new open pit and under-ground uranium mining activity in the United States since the late 1980s."

LONG-TERM RISK: "Tailings disposal sites represent potential sources of contamination for thousands of years, and the long-term risks remain poorly defined."

UNKNOWN RISK: "Additionally, until comprehensive site-specific risk assessments are conducted, including accident and failure analyses, the short-term risk associated with natural disasters, accidents, and spills remain poorly defined."

UNIQUE RISKS FOR VIRGINIA: "In the recent past, most uranium mining and processing has taken place in parts of the United States that have a negative water balance (dry climates with low rainfall), and consequently federal agencies have little experience developing and applying laws and regulations in locations with abundant rainfall and groundwater, and a positive water balance (wet climates with medium to high rainfall), such as Virginia."

PUBLIC PROCESS: "However, under the current regulatory structure, opportunities for meaningful public involvement are fragmented and limited."

WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: "Disturbances of the land surface associated with uranium mining in Virginia would be expected to have significant effects on both on-site and downstream surface water conditions. These disturbances affect both surface water quantity and quality."

http://www.southernenvironment.org/newsroom/press_releases/2011-12-19_nas_report/

Company to build site for testing windmills that could go offshore

2011-12-20T06:07:00.000-05:00

By: Rex Springston
Published: October 13, 2011

A venture with American and Dutch roots is proposing to build a multimillion-dollar center on the Eastern Shore for testing huge windmills that could provide clean energy from offshore.

The Poseidon Atlantic test center would cost $5 million to $7.5 million and could nourish a fledgling wind-power industry in the state, supporters say.

"It helps Virginia become a leader in offshore wind," said Paul Vosbeek, co-founder of Rockville, Md.-based Real NewEnergy LLC, one of the partners in the venture.

The other partner is Ecofys, a sustainable-energy subsidiary of the Dutch utility Eneco. Ecofys operates the largest wind-turbine test center in Europe, at Lelystad in the Netherlands, Poseidon officials say.

The proposal calls for establishing eight to 10 sites where windmills — also called wind turbines — up to 750 feet tall would be built. By comparison, the Washington Monument is 555 feet tall.

Wind-turbine companies would build the machines on the Poseidon center's sites. There, the center's workers would test and certify the turbines for standards such as performance and noise levels.

The specific sites have not been determined, but they would be on the eastern side of Northampton County on the Eastern Shore, officials said.

Read more:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/oct/13/tdbiz01-company-to-build-site-for-testing-windmill-ar-1379653/

New Meeting : Briefing from the National Academy of Sciences' study/Agenda

2011-12-19T16:11:00.000-05:00

*New Meeting* : Briefing from the National Academy of Sciences' study/Agenda

Agenda:

Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy Uranium Mining Sub-Committee

Monday, December 19, 2011, 1:30 p.m.
House Room D, General Assembly Building

Agenda
I. Call to Order
Delegate R. Lee Ware, Chairman
II. Presentation of the National Research Council's Study of the Health, Safety, and Environmental Impacts of Uranium Mining
Dr. Paul A. Locke, JD, DrPH
Director of the Public Health Program
Department of Environmental Health Sciences
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
III. Discussion and Questions from the Sub-committee Members
IV. Response to the public's written questions on the report
IV. Other Business/Future Meetings
V. Adjourn

Legislative Interim Meeting Notice
Coal and Energy Commission Uranium Mining Subcommittee

*New Meeting*

Subject: URANIUM MINING SUBCOMMITTEE of THE COAL AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING

Meeting Date: Monday, December 19, 2011
End Date: Monday, December 19, 2011

Meeting Time: 01:30 PM
Location: House Room D, General Assembly Building

Address: 901 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Information:

The Uranium Mining Subcommittee of The Coal and Energy and Energy Commission will meet on Monday, December 19, 2011 in House Room D at 1:30 PM. There will be a briefing from the National Academy of Sciences' study of the health, safety and environmental impact of uranium Mining. Written comments will be accepted and the subcommittee will take written questions from the public to the study's authors.

Contact:
Martin Farber, Division of Legislative Services (804) 786-3591
Scott Meachan, Division of Legislative Services (804) 786-3591
Bill Owen, House Committee Operations (804) 698-1540

http://dela.state.va.us/Dela/ComOpsStudy.nsf/FB72CC61CD3B2450852577990056CC19/5ADE09723C9BC0E5852579640067351F?OpenDocument

http://dls.virginia.gov/commissions/cec/files/ag121911.pdf

Uranium Mining

2011-12-19T05:04:00.006-05:00

Uranium Mining Studies

2011-12-18T14:52:00.008-05:00

What is rush on uranium?

Posted: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 9:26 am

I can't understand why Chairman Tim Barber, as well as four other county supervisors, would feel that taking time to digest information produced by all the ongoing uranium impact studies, is "overkill."

Should we not err on the side of caution? Surrounding counties have already taken their stance - all with due reserve.

Virginia Uranium Inc. originally said there was no hurry; they would wait to see what the studies produced. But that's not what their moves in the legislature have revealed.

What is the rush here? Looks like many in Virginia would like to hear more, save VUI and five of our supervisors.

Linda Worsley
Chatham

http://www.wpcva.com/opinion/article_b18b1806-265f-11e1-8de8-0019bb2963f4.html

Who will pay long-term costs of uranium mining?

Posted: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 9:30 am
After reading the entire Chmura report, I can't see where all of the rejoicing about this uranium mine is appropriate.

Even in a perfect world where nothing ever goes wrong, this report details plenty of major problems that will accompany this endeavor.

From increased traffic accidents, to air pollution that will cover over a five-mile radius as well as real estate value losses for the 1,350 citizens that live in this radius, this will be the new reality.

Without apology, Virginia Uranium and those that would stand to profit from this venture, would reap benefits from the uncompensated losses of more citizens than would benefit from this mine.

Reading the entire report reveals not just the rosy glow of profit, but some apocalyptic predictions for many of the homes, businesses and citizens of Pittsylvania County.

Perhaps robbing these citizens of property value and quality of life with a little increased cancer risk as a bonus is a small price to pay for the increased prosperity of a couple hundred employees in the Chatham Labor Shed, (basically all of the counties surrounding Pittsylvania), but is this really fair?

Is this hypothetical profit based on peak uranium prices from a few years back realistic given the current price and current demand? Read the report - No!

One glaring omission is lack of mention of insurance costs. Many taxpayers in the area are self-employed farmers; they pay their own insurance out of pocket for home, health, auto and business.

From an actuarial standpoint, in the shadow of this mine with guaranteed increases in respiratory disease and increased traffic accidents and property devaluation, even in the best-case scenario, there is no way any insurance company would offer affordable policies to such a high-risk population.

Who is going to underwrite health policies for the VUI workers at the mine? Is this another bond issue for this company?

This venture is touted by Virginia Energy as securing a future energy source and prosperity independent from the American unfriendly world market.

Sorry, but Canadian-owned Virginia Energy is traded not in an American exchange, but exclusively in Canada.

Half of Virginia Uranium (also traded on the Canadian exchange),is owned by a multitude of international mining interests that have no interest in American well being whatsoever.

Some of these companies are repeat offenders still in courts trying to evade their culpability in creating toxic Superfund sites that U.S. citizens (that's you and me, brother) are paying to clean up.

Read page 109 of the Chmura report. After our friends at VUI get this mine going, they will most likely cash out on the whole project, leaving it in the hands of some of the most notorious, unrepentant polluters this country has ever seen. Take the money and run, laughing all the way.

Back here in the formerly bucolic Pittsylvania cowshed, with our homes devalued, unable to obtain health insurance as we gasp our last polluted breath, our livestock and crops worthless, unwanted by the market, our tax base of cherished private boarding schools closed, who will pay for this devastation?

Not the piddly few million bucks in tax revenue from this mine that wrought this, not the squeezed-dry folks that fell victim to this great idea.

The billions of dollars it will take to plaster over this poisoned hole will never make this area whole again, but it will come from generations of future taxpayers.

Read the report - all of it.

Kay Patrick
Gretna

http://www.wpcva.com/opinion/article_4cf5c548-2660-11e1-a8d9-0019bb2963f4.html

Ruff, Edmunds looking for delay in uranium vote

WRITTEN BY DOUG FORD
08:28 AM 12/14/11

State Senator Frank Ruff and Delegate James Edmunds told town council at its monthly meeting Monday night they were hopeful a vote on the current moratorium on uranium mining in Virginia would not occur in the upcoming General Assembly session. Council had invited the pair of legislators to its meeting to give an overview of the General Assembly session, due to begin in mid-January.

Ruff has stated his opposition to lifting the current moratorium on uranium mining, but he is optimistic the issue will not come to a vote in this session.

“I don’t think it (uranium) will be dealt with this year,” Ruff told council. The prevailing view is with these reports coming out, people will take the time and read them,” Ruff told council.

A National Academy of Science report is coming out any day, several hundred pages long with a recap of about 20 pages, according to Ruff.

There’s not going to be a very good concentration of legislators reading the report due to time constraints caused by the demands of the holiday season, Ruff noted.

“That’s not a very fair assessment. We need to sit down, let everyone go through it and see what the follow up questions are,” he said.

“I’m not sure it will satisfy anybody in this area, but that’s the best we can hope for this year.

“I think everyone needs to know what the ground rules are before we take such a drastic step.”

Edmunds, who also has expressed his opposition to lifting the moratorium, said, “It looks like we’re going to put this thing off for at least a year.”

“As much concern as there is about it, I don’t believe it can get a proper airing,” he said.

“It’s not as if nothing else is going on. I hope we can at least put this thing off for at least a year.

http://www.gazettevirginian.com/index.php/news/34-news/4555-ruff-edmunds-looking-for-delay-in-uranium-vote

Schapiro: Executive asks, 'Is uranium a good business?'

Comment: This is interesting. If I was a betting person I'd say the ban is safe for another year.

By: Jeff E. Schapiro | jschapiro@timesdispatch.com
Published: December 14, 2011

Ben Davenport Jr.'s farm, where he and his family will spend Christmas, is 4 miles northeast of Coles Hill, site of a proposed uranium mine. The Davenport place, in Pittsylvania County, is hard by the Banister River, which mine opponents predict would be poisoned with radioactive waste. Davenport doesn't share that fear. He has other concerns.

"The question I have is the stigma," says Davenport. "We're being asked to endorse a risk."

Clement is among 16 lobbyists paid nearly $270,000 since 2009 by Virginia Uranium Inc., headed by Clement's brother-in-law, Walter Coles Sr.

Uncertainty is the bane of business, and listening to Davenport, the proposed mine is generating a mother lode. He worries that, with Canadian bankers backing the venture, more money would flow north of the border than through Southside. He worries about possible declines in enrollment at Hargrave Military Academy, of which Davenport is an alumnus and trustee. He worries property values will fall.

"Why would you come here, if you felt threatened?" said Davenport, whose fuel and waste-hauling companies employ more than 300 people along the Virginia-North Carolina border.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/dec/14/tdmet01-schapiro-executive-asks-is-uranium-a-good--ar-1542121/

Va. uranium mining report to be delivered

By STEVE SZKOTAK | AP –

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A legislative commission has scheduled a meeting for Monday to present a highly anticipated report on uranium mining that is expected to guide General Assembly debate on whether Virginia should end a 30-year ban on mining the radioactive ore.

The uranium sub-committee of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy on Tuesday scheduled the meeting with the chairman of the National Academy of Sciences panel that will present the report. It will not include a recommended course of action for legislators.

Paul A. Locke, the chairman of the study, is an environmental health scientist, an attorney and an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University. He will discuss the report with committee members and take questions.

The $1.4 million report was financed by Virginia Uranium Inc., which wants to mine a 119-million-pound deposit in Pittsylvania County. It is believed to be the richest known uranium deposit in the U.S. and one of the largest in the world.

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.

Keep the Ban, a coalition of communities, environmental groups and the Virginia NAACP, wants to keep the ban in place

http://ph.news.yahoo.com/va-uranium-mining-report-delivered-214809388.html

Report: Uranium mining risky but a boom

2011-12-18T05:01:00.014-05:00

December 02, 2011

Uranium mining in the spine of Virginia, including Fauquier County, could create an economic boom and significant environmental problems, according to a state-commissioned report issued this week.

The 2012 General Assembly, which convenes Jan. 11, might consider lifting a ban on uranium mining and milling in Virginia. The ban took effect in 1982.

Southside Virginia could gain 1,000 jobs annually and $135 million annually over 35 years, according to the new report from Chmura Economics & Analytics in Richmond.

But the report warns: "Uranium mining and milling operations unambiguously increase the exposure of the public and the environment to mildly radioactive substances, toxic chemicals, heavy metals and other carcinogenic material."

Opponents contend that milling, which separates uranium ore from rock, has enormous potential to pollute water supplies.

The report says those who live within five miles of a milling operation would face the risk of increased asthma-related symptoms or other respiratory problems.

Meanwhile, the National Academy of Sciences soon will issue a technical report on the effects of potential uranium mining in Virginia.

http://www.fauquiernow.com/page.cfm/article/Report:-Uranium-mining-risky-but-also-a-potential-boon

Report provides uranium discussion framework

2011-12-17T20:26:00.000-05:00

By: Tara Bozick | GoDanRiver.com
Published: December 16, 2011 Updated: December 16, 2011 - 7:04 PM

For residents who need to get caught up on the uranium debate, a recently released report is a handy introduction and guide for how to think about or discuss the complex issues.

About 125 people came to hear the key findings of RTI International’s report on the potential socioeconomic impacts of uranium mining in the Dan River Region at the Danville Pittsylvania County Chamber of Commerce breakfast on Friday.

Danville Regional Foundation paid $530,000 for the independent study, as Virginia Uranium Inc. would like lawmakers to lift a 30-year moratorium so the company could mine and mill a 119-million-pound uranium deposit at Coles Hill in Pittsylvania County.

“The bottom line is this is a very complicated, high risk, high stakes question,” said study project manager Katherine Heller of RTI in Research Triangle Park, N.C.

New jobs and higher incomes could enhance the region, but that comes with the risk of environmental contamination, even if VUI does everything right, she added. On top of that, the region risks the perceived quality of the area being damaged, even if there’s no evidence.

Regional industries that rely on water, like agriculture, tourism, food and beverage manufacturing and chemical manufacturing, would have the most costs associated with negative perceptions, Sinha said.

Collaboration between the company, regulators and residents would be needed to prevent or mitigate any environmental impacts, said environmental scientist Michael Lowry. That’s in addition to knowing pre-mining conditions, using the best technology and practices and continual pollution monitoring.

Ongoing monitoring, demonstration of limited impacts and openness and transparency would also mitigate inaccurate negative perceptions, Heller said.

Dr. Gary Miller, a Danville councilman, asked about the potential net loss of jobs if the uranium project chased away business. He also wanted more information on miner safety and estimated health costs.

He’ll use this study along with others to come to a final conclusion on the uranium question. He worries the project is a gamble when just one accidental release of contamination could cause harm to the region.

“You’ve got to make sure the benefits are way up here and the risks are way down here,” Miller said, gesturing with his hands.

Halifax Town Councilman Bill Confroy asked if Virginia had the capacity to monitor uranium mining and what the cost would be. The report estimated that Virginia would need to hire between 10 and 20 additional employees with specialized expertise, which could cost between $2 million and $5 million.

DRF President and CEO Karl Stauber acknowledged that the study could not answer all questions, but that it provides a comprehensive overview of uranium risks and rewards and injects analysis into the public discussion.

To view the report and presentation, visit www.danvilleregionalfoundation.org. For questions about the study, call Patrick Gibbons at (919) 541-6136 or email pgibbons@rti.org.

More reaction to the report

» The Roanoke River Basin Association and League of Individuals for the Environment, Inc. said in a statement that while the study relied on estimates of economic benefits provided by VUI, it also shows how the region’s water levels are at risk.

“Further, we believe that a series of public hearings should be held throughout the state on a monthly basis for the next 18 months by an unbiased commission. Only fools rush in on a matter this monumental,” said RRBA Executive Director Andrew Lester in a statement.

Read more:
http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2011/dec/16/report-provides-uranium-discussion-framework-ar-1550116/

National Academy of Science to release "Uranium Mining in Virginia" Report Dec. 19th

2011-12-17T09:01:00.002-05:00

National Academy of Science to release "Uranium Mining in Virginia" Report Dec. 19th

On Monday, December 19th, The National Academy of Science (NAS) isscheduled to release their report: "Uranium Mining in Virginia". Thishighly anticipated report is being released just 22 days before the 2012General Assembly session.

The NAS report was commissioned by the Coal and Energy Sub-Committee on Uranium Mining and is intended to inform the debate onwhether or not to lift the ban.

The NAS contract stipulates a 5 month publicreview process from the date of the release, however, industry executives arerushing the process and have promised their stock holders they will introduce apiece of legislation in the 2012 session which runs from Jan through March2012.

Now is the time to show broad public support toKeep the Ban. Can you join us on December 19th?

Uranium Sub-Committee Meeting
When: December 19, 2011 1:30pm
Where: Virginia General Assembly Building,Richmond, House Room D

If you are planning to attend the meeting or ifyou would like additional information please email Mary.Rafferty@SierraClub.org

Don't Know About Uranium Mining inVirginia?

Virginia has a nearly 30 year ban on uraniummining. The industry is making a well financed push to lift that ban in theupcoming General Assembly session starting in January 2012. If the ban werelifted, processed uranium would be shipped out of state. Left behind forcenturies would be huge volumes of radioactive and toxic waste, disposed nearfarmlands and local waterways. Exposure to this waste has been linked toincreases in leukemia, kidney disease and other severe health problems.

Uranium mining in the U.S. has typically occurredin dry, sparsely populated climates in the arid Southwest. Virginia, on theother hand, has wet weather and is prone to extreme flooding and storms.Communities downstream from the first proposed site in Pittsylvania County(including Virginia Beach and Chesapeake) worry that a large storm, likeHurricane Irene, will overwhelm operations putting their drinking water at riskof radioactive contamination.

You can get more information and sign our petition at www.KeepTheBan.org

Read more:
http://vcnva.org/anx/

Uranium mining, milling threatens water, report claims

2011-12-17T04:23:00.001-05:00

By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Tuesday, November 22, 2011 9:03 AM EST

A report funded by the Roanoke River Basin Association warns that a proposed uranium mining and milling project in Pittsylvania County could be a serious threat to water quality and may increase competition for water in the future.

The 39-page report, "Site-Specific Assessment of the Proposed Uranium Mining and Milling Project at Coles Hill, Pittsylvania County, Va.," was released Thursday.

It was written by Colorado scientist Robert E. Moran, PhD., who has 40 years of experience and served as a hydrogeological and water quality consultant to Marline Uranium and Union Carbide on the Coles Hill project in the early 1980s.

Moran also was the keynote speaker in October at workshops sponsored by the Roanoke River Basin Association in Danville and League for the Environment in Dry Fork.

According to the Roanoke River group, most of the information for Coles Hill was collected by the mining companies or consultants and contractors paid by Marline or Virginia Uranium.

Moran's study is one of the few reports on the potential impact of uranium mining not funded by the mining industry, the association noted.

It also pointed out Moran's report is "site-specific" to Coles Hill.

"Various aspects of uranium mining are expected to be addressed in the National Academy of Sciences report due on Dec. 1, 2011," said association executive director Andrew Lester.

"However, the statement of task for the NAS panel explicitly excludes site-specific assessments, which prompted the Roanoke River Basin Association to commission this report to assess risks and challenges associated with on-site water and waste management during the operations and post-closure," Lester said.

Olga Kolotushkina, an adviser to the Roanoke River Basin Association, agreed.

"Unfortunately, the company seeking to lift the existing ban has so far failed to present any sort of detailed project proposal in writing," she said.

"The verbally described plans have changed constantly, depending on the audience. Hence, we felt that an independent evaluation of the proposed project is needed."

Approximately 1.2 million people rely on the Roanoke River for drinking water downstream from Coles Hill.

Moran said the uranium mining industry's track record demonstrates that predictions on potential impacts on water resources and public health, as well as promised socioeconomic benefits, are "overly optimistic."

"The most powerful influences in any decision on uranium mining and processing are likely to be financial and political," he said.

"Thus, it is imperative that the public evaluate the long-term 'big picture' because the actual impacts will be paid for by numerous future generations."

Moran was asked to evaluate site- and project-specific risks and challenges posed by uranium mining and milling at Coles Hill.

"Most U.S. uranium mining sites that I visited are located in desert or semi-desert, sparsely populated regions," he said.

"The Coles Hill site is wet, with annual precipitation equal to about 42 inches. It's really quite different from isolated sites in the West.

"Most importantly, within a radius of two to three miles, Coles Hill has roughly 250 private wells, at least one dairy and numerous hay and forage fields, which are liable to be impacted," said Moran.

Read more:
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2011/11/22/chatham/news/news43.txt

RTI Uranium Study - Press Release

2011-12-16T20:18:00.001-05:00

PRESS RELEASE

For immediate release: December 16, 2011

Contact: Andrew Lester, 434-250-1185; Deborah Lovelace, 434-841-3736

Danville, VA - Today, representatives of the Roanoke River Basin Association (RRBA) and League of Individuals for the Environment, Inc. (LIFE) attended a presentation by RTI International (RTI) of its recently released report on socioeconomic impacts of a uranium mine and mill proposed 14 miles southeast of Smith Mountain Lake.

The RTI study, like the Chmura study, relied on the estimates of economic benefits provided by Virginia Uranium, Inc., a Canadian-owned company seeking to lift Virginiaâ€™s 30-year ban on uranium mining.

One of the most important conclusions of the RTI study is that â€œeven if the mine and mill meet or exceed regulatory standards, detectable concentrations of uranium and other constituents would be released from the facility into the surrounding environment.â€ The study also describes the risks to the regions as â€œboth actual environmental risks and perceived risks that could hurt the regionâ€™s reputation.â€

â€œAlthough we at Roanoke River Basin Association, like other interested citizens, have not had the opportunity to read and digest this massive report, the RTI presentation this morning confirms our common-sense concerns that proposed uranium mining in our state would be detrimental to Virginia's business climate and a threat to the public's health, safety and welfare," said Andrew Lester, RRBA executive director.

â€œWe believe that a thorough analysis and venting of this report, as well as other issues, should take place over the next year or more. Further, we believe that a series of public hearings should be held throughout the state on a monthly basis for the next 18 months by an unbiased commission. Only fools rush in on a matter this monumental," said Lester.

The study also finds that proposed uranium operations â€œwould reduce groundwater levels in the area around the mine, and could affect nearby wells, springs, and surface water bodies.â€

œThe major concern for me personally is that the study concludes that the proposed operations would affect the water volumes and thus increase competition for water resources in the region. The question is how uranium mining is going to affect the water level on Smith Mountain Lake?â€ said Olga Kolotushkina, a part-time lake resident.

â€œWater is a major concern in all aspects of life from farming, businesses, industry and recreation,â€ agreed Deborah Lovelace, LIFE president. â€œWe must make sure it is thoroughly studied. The state officials should insist on more studies to provide definite answers to questions not addressed in the RTI and other studies,â€ said Lovelace.

Report details rewards, risks with uranium mining

A Danville Regional Foundation-commissioned socioeconomic study of potential uranium mining impacts on the Dan River Region details “reasonable” rewards and risks.

RTI International, based in Research Triangle Park, N.C., spent the past year interviewing regional stakeholders, researching uranium mine and mill impacts on other communities and analyzing information to give residents a sense of what’s at stake (within 50 miles) in Virginia Uranium Inc.’s

http://www2.wsls.com/news/2011/dec/15/report-risks-rewards-va-uranium-mining-ar-1547493/

Fairfax Water looking at impact of uranium mining

2011-12-16T05:21:00.008-05:00

Posted at 09:25 PM ET, 12/01/2011
By Tom Jackman

Uranium mining is actually banned in Virginia right now. But next month, the General Assembly is going to start considering lifting that ban because of some uranium deposits in southern Virginia which could bring big money to, well, the uranium mine owners. In anticipation of that, the board of Fairfax Water last month ordered up an $85,000 study into what that all means for Northern Virginia.

Fairfax Water thought they better get ready in case someone starts drilling around here, Bianchi said.

“There are uranium mining sites,” she said, “that have been identified to be within the Occoquan and Potomac watersheds. We need to be proactive on what impact the mining might have.”

Bianchi said the water board decided, “Let’s get ahead of it. If the moratorium is lifted, what our position is on lifting that ban.”

The study is due to be presented to the water board later this month.

By Tom Jackman | 09:25 PM ET, 12/01/2011

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-state-of-nova/post/fairfax-water-looking-at-impact -of-uranium-mining/2011/12/01/gIQA9NheIO_blog.html

Articles: Problems with Uranium Mining

2011-12-15T19:10:00.008-05:00

TURNING THE OLD DOMINION INTO A WASTELAND

Op-ed on uranium mining in Virginia: No, we should not mine until a great deal more research has been completed
Date published: 12/11/2011

In Colorado, a Cotter Corp. mill has been leaking for 30 years, despite repeated efforts to address the problem. The mill was declared a Superfund site in the 1980s, but a 2004 report found that it continued to release "millions of gallons of leachate into the environment each year." Cleanup was estimated to cost anywhere from $50 million to $500 million.

The picture is no better in Canada. In 1989, a leak in Saskatchewan dumped more than 500,000 gallons of radioactive water into the environment. If you didn't hear about it, it's likely because it occurred in a remote region of the continent.

All of this might make you wonder about sites closer to home. Has uranium been mined near Virginia, or in a place where hurricanes could flood waste disposal sites? According to Virginia Tech geochemistry professor Robert Bodnar, open-pit or underground uranium mining has never occurred east of the Mississippi. The industry, however, points to Florida, where uranium was extracted as a by-product of phosphate mining. The comparison is not reassuring.

In 1997, a spill at one Florida phosphate mine released 50 million gallons of wastewater, poisoning 35 miles of the Alafia River and killing up to 3 million fish. When that corporation declared bankruptcy in 2001, it left the state holding the bag on another contaminated site. The cleanup of the second disaster cost taxpayers $144 million.

The industry also points to Louisiana, where, as in Florida, uranium was recovered at phosphate mines. Again, the reference is not comforting. From 1990 to 1994, two Louisiana plants--the Saint James and Uncle Sam facilities--dumped more than 540 million pounds of toxic waste into the Mississippi River. In 1991 alone, those plants were responsible for 130 million pounds of contaminated runoff--helping to give Louisiana the unsavory honor of leading the nation in toxic releases for the year.

Given this legacy of contamination, it's understandable why voices outside of the environmental community are calling for a go-slow approach

http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2011/122011/12112011/669161/index_html?page=2

Uranium sector continues to face price uncertainty

12 December, 2011 13:54
BusinessLIVE

The global uranium sector has faced near-term price uncertainty since the March nuclear crisis in Japan and the dynamics driving the near-term sector outlook continue to be dominated by the aftermath of that nuclear event, Resources Capital Research (RCR) said in its December quarter note.

Read more:
http://www.businesslive.co.za/southafrica/sa_markets/2011/12/12/uranium-sector-continues-t o-face-
price-uncertainty

Long shift after accident at uranium mine

The Canadian Press Monday, December 12, 2011 8:15 AM

A hoist at the mine broke on Saturday, and the workers couldn't get out for several hours.

It was decided to keep the workers underground while the repairs were made rather than resort to emergency measures to bring them out.

The Cigar Lake Mine is located in the Athabasca Basin of northern Saskatchewan.

Read it on Global News: http://www.globalsaskatoon.com/long+shift+after+accident+at+uranium+mine/6442540253/story. html

Uranium in Pittsylvania: Buried treasure or threat?

The Roanoke Times
December 12, 2011
By Laurence Hammack and Michael Sluss

CHATHAM

Of all the cow pastures in Pittsylvania County, where dairy farms dot the rolling landscape, this one looks no different than the rest.

Sure enough, lots of people are interested in this cow pasture and adjoining farmland.

Landowner Walter Coles is interested in the billions of dollars buried under Coles Hill, the farm that's been in his family for five generations. Four years ago, Coles formed Virginia Uranium Inc. and hired Wales to carry out his goal of mining the uranium, an estimated 119 million pounds, to be sold for fuel in power-generating nuclear reactors.

Many more people are interested, too, but for different reasons. Where some see a gold mine, they see a potential public health and environmental disaster.

Do the risks of uranium mining outweigh the benefits? That will soon be a question for the General Assembly, which is expected to decide at its upcoming session whether to lift a 30-year moratorium on the practice.

Opponents say digging up and processing the uranium will create 28 million tons of radioactive waste - enough to fill 145 Super Walmart stores - that could poison local wells and seep into the Roanoke River, contaminating the drinking water for nearly 2 million people downstream of the mine.

The mining leftovers, called tailings, would be stored on the site and maintain their radioactivity for more than 1,000 years.

"Do we want to manage radioactive waste in perpetuity?" asked Cale Jaffe, a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. "Is that the legacy we want for Virginia?"

Risks vs. safeguards

Byron Motley drives his pickup truck along country roads near the Coles Hill property, just 2 miles from his home, on a guided tour of his fears.

There's the Banister River, muddy and swollen from recent rains. There's a low-lying field where floodwaters have reached the tops of fence posts. There's a patch of wetland. And another.

The point, Motley makes from behind the steering wheel, is that the wet climate here is far different than in the western United States, where nearly all of the country's uranium is mined in arid conditions.

Motley worries that containment ponds, where radioactive tailings the consistency of sand would be mixed with water and stored for centuries, could be breached by one of the hurricanes or tornados that's sure to come.

"I personally don't see any way on earth to contain what they're going to do," he said. "I just don't see it."

Earlier this year, his concerns were confirmed by a study for the city of Virginia Beach, which draws its drinking water from Lake Gaston - part of the Roanoke River basin that is downstream from the proposed uranium mine. The lake also supplies water to Norfolk and Chesapeake.

Read more:
http://hamptonroads.com/2011/12/uranium-pittsylvania-buried-treasure-or-threat

Meeting: Uranium Mining and Milling at Coles Hill, Virginia: Possible Impacts on the Surrounding Region

2011-12-15T15:19:00.000-05:00

Meeting: Uranium Mining and Milling at Coles Hill, Virginia: Possible Impacts on the Surrounding Region

Event Location: Institute for Advanced Learning & Research

150 Slayton Avenue, Danville

Date/Time Information : Friday, December 16, 2011, 7:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.

Contact Information: Danville Pittsylvania County Chamber of Commerce:

http://business.dpchamber.org/events/details/business-at-breakfast-12-16-11

Fees/Admission: $20/person: https://secure2.chambermaster.com/directory/jsp/events/dlg/Public_AddReg.jsp;jsessionid=E51D2CBE0009DBD8AC5FCEBFDAFD13DF

Info on study:
Over the past year, with funding from the Danville Regional Foundation, RTI International has conducted a wide-ranging assessment of possible impacts of the proposed Coles Hill Uranium Mine and Mill on the study region within 50 miles of Coles Hill, recognizing that socioeconomic impacts depend not only on jobs and spending in the region, but also on environmental quality, amenities, and the overall quality of life. The study’s goal was not to reach conclusions or recommendations about whether the project should go forward; rather, RTI has sought to inform regional stakeholders about the project, acknowledging the uncertainties involved. RTI has gathered and analyzed information from a variety of sources to identify and answer questions raised by stakeholders in the region. RTI will present the results of this assessment, describing a range of possible environmental and socioeconomic impacts under alternative scenarios and discussing the experience of other regions in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world that have experience with uranium mining and milling. The presentation will summarize the study approach, data, and findings. The study report, which will be released the same day, compiles information that stakeholders in the region and elsewhere can use to inform their assessment of the proposed project.

Uranium Mining – The Virginia Battleground – Environmental Concerns vs. Corporate Interests Part Three

2011-12-15T05:08:00.000-05:00

By Rose Ellen O'Connor, on November 29th, 2011
Natural Resources News Service

Former Senate Democratic Majority Leader Richard Saslaw (Fairfax), who has made an issue of refusing the company’s offers of a trip to France to see a mine and a helicopter ride to Coles Hill, received $13,000 in campaign donations, the most the company gave to a single legislator. It is unclear what position Saslaw will hold in next year’s session because Democrats and Republicans in the senate are split 20 to 20 with Republican Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling able to break any tie votes.

Virginia General Assembly
Saslaw has not taken a position on the proposed mine. That, coupled with his leadership role among Democrats, has made him an important player to Virginia Uranium.

House Speaker Bill Howell ( R-Stafford) came in second among the legislators for contributions from the company, receiving $7,000.

The company also gave Gov. McDonnell $2,000 for his election campaign, $1000 for his inaugural party and $10,000 for his political action committee. McDonnell has lobbied the federal government to permit oil and gas drilling off the coast of Virginia and says he supports uranium mining as long as it is safe.

“It will be a tremendous number of jobs, tax revenues and opportunities,” McDonnell said in July on WNIS, a Norfolk radio station. The governor added that the state stood to “gain a lot by a safe and vibrant nuclear industry.”

Coles Jr. boasted of the governor’s support to a group of potential investors in London, England, according to a transcript of the February meeting.

“We have a new Republican governor in Virginia who has stated that he wants Virginia to be the energy producing capital of the East Coast,” Coles Jr. said in London “We have a big supporter in the state government there with Gov. McDonnell.”

Coles Sr. said in an interview that Virginia Uranium is awaiting the outcome of the study by the National Academy of Sciences. He adamantly denied to the Natural Resources News Service that anyone connected with the company had discussed sponsoring a bill to authorize mining with legislators. That is not what Coles Jr. told a group of potential investors on Wall Street in February.

“We went to the state legislature and said we’ve got to get these regulations adopted. The state said, ‘OK.’ So the state engaged the National Academy of Sciences to do a fresh study,” the younger Coles said. “We’re not sitting still while the NAS study is going on. In January of 2012, we will have a bill in the state legislature that directs the Department of Mineral, Mines and Energy to develop the regulations of uranium mining.”

When asked who would introduce the bill, Coles Jr. said, “We have a number of legislators who have offered.”

Last year, Virginia Uranium was the second largest gift giver to members of the General Assembly, spending $27,488. Executives took a senator out to lunch and flew three legislators to Bessines, France, to see a closed uranium mine that operated from 1948 to 1995. The company says it wanted the legislators to see it because it was a successful mining operation in an area with similar rainfall and population to Pittsylvania County.

On the trip were Sen. John C. Watkins (R-Chesterfield); Del. Onzlee Ware (D-Roanoke); and Sen. Frank Wagner (R-Va. Beach). All three serve on the Coal and Energy Commission’s subcommittee on uranium mining, which voted to move forward with a study of uranium mining in May 2009.

Virginia Uranium invited almost all 140 members of the General Assembly to visit Bessines in June, at a potential cost of about $10,000 each. The stay included three days in Paris with nothing on the agenda, according to The Washington Post. The 14 legislators who accepted went in two groups on two separate trips.

In September, a group 15 legislators, local officials and residents went to Saskatchewan, Canada, to visit a working mine and mill, at the company’s expense. The cost was $3,000 each. All of the legislators were facing reelection battles in early November and many said they felt uncomfortable accepting lavish trips.

State Sen. Frank M. Ruff (R-Mecklenberg), who opposes the mine, declined the trip to France. Ruff says that he thought it was extravagant and that he would be uncomfortable with the appearance. Ruff says he wanted to feel free to review the report from the National Academy of Sciences independently and come to his own conclusions.

“I would not want to appear compromised,” Ruff says.

House Democratic caucus chairman Kenneth Plum (Fairfax) also declined the company’s offer. He says he went on a family vacation to France and visited Bessines on his own.

“When I looked at the agenda for the trip it seemed to be heavily weighted toward entertainment as opposed to education,” Plum says. “I didn’t want to be in a position where I was accepting a gift from someone who might be trying to influence my decision.”

Please read all of the articles:
http://www.dcbureau.org/201111296597/natural-resources-news-service/uranium-mining-%E2%80%93-the-virginia-battleground-%E2%80%93-environmental-concerns-vs-corporate-interests-part-three.html

Uranium Mining – The Virginia Battleground – Environmental Concerns vs. Corporate Interests Part Two

2011-12-14T06:15:00.007-05:00

November 23rd, 2011 | Natural Resources News Service | Rose Ellen O'Connor

Virginia is the home of many historic Revolutionary and Civil War battlefields. But today, conflicts are being fought in a different forum. The question of whether to lift Virginia’s moratorium on uranium mining is shaping up to be one of the biggest battles in the General Assembly next year

Virginia Uranium, Inc. wants to mine a 119-pound uranium ore deposit called Coles Hill. It is in Pittsylvania County in south central Virginia, often referred to as Southside. The company, flush with Canadian investments, has hired 15 lobbyists to push their cause in Richmond. It has also contributed cash to the campaigns of more than 70 legislators and taken lawmakers on all-expense-paid trips to see mining areas in France and Canada.

Environmental groups, who have seven lobbyists, are also gearing up for the fight and do not plan to be outgunned. Some are predicting the vote will be close. At the center of the debate is the question of whether modern technology and stricter regulations can avoid the catastrophes of uranium mining’s past.

Virginia Uranium would operate a mine and milling plant on the Coles Hill site. After uranium is mined, the ore is taken to a mill where the stone is crushed to free up the uranium oxide or “yellow cake.” The waste materials, radioactive sand-like “tailings,” are mixed with water and chemicals, creating toxic slurry.

Tailings remain radioactive for thousands of years and have poisoned live stock, contaminated waterways and destroyed farms and pastures. Chemicals in the tailings have been linked to cancer. Virginia Uranium says it plans to place some of the tailings in underground holding compartments and some back in the mine.

Opponents say they fear the tailings will leach into groundwater or run off into surface rivers and streams. Virginia’s hurricanes and heavy storms increase the risk of contamination, they say

Read more:
http://www.dcbureau.org/201111236532/natural-resources-news-service/uranium-mining-%e2%80%93-the-virginia-battleground-%e2%80%93-environmental-concerns-vs-corporate-interests-part-two.html#more-6532

Uranium Mining – The Virginia Battleground – Environmental Concerns vs. Corporate Interests - Part !

2011-12-13T06:19:00.001-05:00

November 18th, 2011 | Natural Resources News Service | Rose Ellen O'Connor

The Virginia General Assembly is expected to vote next year on whether to lift a 30-year moratorium on uranium mining in the state.

The issue has prompted an expensive lobbying campaign by the company that wants to mine a huge deposit known as Coles Hill in Pittsylvania County and an intense fight by environmentalists who want to stop it. The battle has pitted neighbor against neighbor in the county, in south central Virginia, an area known as Southside.

Two Virginians, each offered money to allow uranium mining on their land, personify the debate that is raging through the state. One accepted. The other declined.

Bill Speiden, a legislative director for the Orange County Farm Bureau, ran a dairy farm on his land for forty years. He was approached in 1979 by the now defunct Marline Uranium Corp., the Canadian company that lobbied the General Assembly for uranium mining approval in the early to mid 1980s. Marline was primarily interested in Coles Hill but explored uranium deposits throughout the state.

Speiden says the company offered him and his wife a signing bonus and royalties on the uranium his land produced. When he did not say yes, Marline offered him a partnership in the company, he says. He did not understand the intense interest until he saw a map of uranium hot spots in Northern Virginia. Each was marked with one to four bars.

“There was only one four-bar radioactive hot spot in Northern Virginia and that was on my land,” Speiden says. “That explained why they were putting pressure on.”

Read more:
http://www.dcbureau.org/201111186500/natural-resources-news-service/uranium-mining-%e2%80%93-the-virginia-battleground-%e2%80%93-environmental-concerns-vs-corporate-interests.html#more-6500

Mining studies to be presented in area meetings

2011-12-12T15:09:00.000-05:00

By: GoDanRiver Staff
Published: December 03, 2011

The Danville Pittsylvania County Chamber of Commerce is hosting a presentation on the Danville Regional Foundation-sponsored study on the socioeconomic impacts of uranium mining in the region on Dec. 16.

Over the past year, RTI International, a nonprofit based in Research Triangle Park, N.C., has been analyzing information, surveying stakeholders. Now, the firm is ready to present the results of its study and discuss the experience other regions with uranium mining and milling.

The cost of the breakfast presentation is $20, and register online by Dec. 9 at www.dpchamber.org
The event runs from 7:30 to 9 a.m. at the Institute for Advanced Learning and Research.

Additionally, the uranium mining subcommittee of the Coal and Energy Commission will receive a presentation of the state-commissioned Chmura Economics & Analytics socioeconomic study of uranium mining at 6 p.m. Tuesday at the Pittsylvania County Educational and Cultural Center at 39 Bank St. in Chatham.

http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2011/dec/03/mining-studies-be-presented-area-meetings-ar-1512155/

Risks Associated with Conventional Uranium Milling Operations

2011-12-12T07:32:00.001-05:00

Additional Risks to Workers

Mill workers, beyond the six pathways described above, experience added risks associated with accidents inside the milling facility. The hazards due to chemical spills inside the plant exist, but may be minor relative to potential radiological accident scenarios.

At acid leaching mills, sulfuric acid is present. Though the acid is corrosive to the skin and eyes, the leaching process is carried out at atmospheric pressure, and the risk of workers coming into contact with a spray during a pipe failure is not plausible. If there were a fire coupled with the release of sulfuric acid, then the inhalation of acid aerosols and sulfur dioxide could result in severe irritation of the eyes, mucous membranes, and respiratory tract. In addition to sulfuric acid, ammonia is often added to help control the pH level during the uranium precipitation phase. It is likely that this ammonia would be under significant pressure, creating the risk of a spray, in the event of a pipe failure, that poses a risk to the skin and eyes of any nearby worker. The ammonia would also quickly evaporate, adding an inhalation hazard if the accident occurred in a poorly ventilated area.

The radiological hazards associated with milling work potentially involve the yellowcake product in a dangerous respirable form. The two most notable accident scenarios are a thickener tank failure where the yellowcake slurry is spilled to the floor and allowed to dry, or a yellowcake dryer accident. Inhalation of the yellowcake particulates is a significant inhalation hazard, because of the presence of U

3O8 in the cake. The reader is referred to Appendix III: Risks Associated with In Situ Leaching [see section (ii) Radiological Hazards] for a more detailed description of operational accidents in the milling facility, specifically those involving yellowcake.

In the NRC report (U.S. NRC 1980), it was calculated that the committed annual dose to a worker at a conventional milling facility ranges from 2.0 rem to the bone up to 7.1 rem to the lung. These

AIV-8

annual doses would result in an effective dose equivalent of 240 mrem to the bone marrow (red) and 60 mrem to the bone surface and lung. Any exposures accrued because of accidental exposure to yellowcake would be in addition to this. This information is summarized in Table AVI-3 found at the end of the document. A study by Pinkerton et al (2004) reported mixed results in a study of a cohort of uranium mill workers, but concluded that for several limiting factors, such as small cohort size, they could not make "firm conclusions about the relation of the observed excesses in mortality."

Summary

The primary hazard associated with conventional uranium milling operations is the high level of radioactive contamination contained in the mill tailings (waste products). The decay progeny of uranium are the most significant of these radioactive contaminants, including radium and radon-222, which readily moves through the interstitial spaces of the tailing pile and is released to the atmosphere. Once inhaled, radon and its decay progeny can cause significant damage to the lung via alpha radiation. Other radiological hazards include direct gamma exposure from the tailings pile and the inhalation of any dust resuspended by wind. These hazards are typically mitigated through the use of a suitable cover over the tailing to reduce the radon released to the atmosphere and attenuate direct gamma exposure. A suitable cover can also eliminate the risks associated with the suspension of dust in the air.

Ground seepage of chemically hazardous constituents of tailings piles has been known historically to contaminate nearby aquifers. Modern milling facilities often employ a liner beneath tailings piles to prevent any ground seepage and subsequent groundwater contamination. The NRC concluded that 95% of the possible contamination would happen while the mill was operating, and that the threat was mainly from toxic elements such as arsenic, not the radioactive constituents of the pile.

As with any industrial facility, safe management practices are critical to the safe operation of uranium mills. Catastrophic accidents, such as a dam failure, have the potential to release large quantities of tailings, resulting in the contamination of local water supplies and the residential population. The improper use of mill tailings as a building material can also pose a severe radiological risk to private individuals, particularly in tribal communities. Accidents occurring within the milling facility could expose workers to chemical risks, and radiological risks from contact with or inhalation of uranium yellowcake.

doses shown are total annual 15

th-year dose commitments except where noted as being those covered by 40 CFR 190 limits.

The range in risks due to uncertainties in health effects models extends from about one-half to two times the central value. This range does not include uncertainties in other areas (e.g. source term estimates and dose assessment models).

Risk comparisons are presented for exposure received during entire mill life; that is, 15 years of exposure during operation of the mill, and 5 years of post-operation exposure while tailings are drying out, are considered. This value is greater than that from annual exposures presented because tailings dust releases increase in the period when tailings are drying.

The "nearby individual" occupies a permanent residence at a reference location about 2 km downwind of the tailings pile.

The "average individual" exposure is determined by dividing the total population exposure in the model region by its population total.

The "average worker" exposure is determined by averaging exposures expected at the various locations in the typical mill.

The career dose is based on a person who has worked 47 years in the milling industry (that is, from ages 18 to 65).

AIV-10 AIV-11

References

Ali, S 2003—

Boice et al. 2007

—Boice, J., Jr, Mumma, M. and Blot, W. Cancer and Noncancer Mortality in Populations Living Near Uranium and Vanadium Mining and Milling Operations in Montrose County, Colorado, 1950-2000. Radiation Research Vol. 167, 711-726, 2007.

Boice et al. 2003

—Boice, J.Jr, Mumma, M., Schweitzer, S., and Blot, W. Cancer Mortality in a Texas County with Prior Uranium Mining and Milling Activities, 1950-2001. J. Radiol. Prot. Vol. 23 pp.247-262, 2003.

Elmer, J. 2005—Elmer, J.

Overview of the UMTRA Program in Western Colorado. Geological Society of America, Rocky Mountain Section Annual Meeting, Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 37, No. 6, May 23-25, 2005, Grand Junction, CO.

U.S. EPA 2006—U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).

Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials from Uranium Mining. Volume 1: Mining and Reclamation Background. EPA 402R-05-007 Washington, DC: EPA 402-R-05-007, Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Revised June 2007.

U.S. EPA 1983—U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).

U.S. EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Monticello Radioactively Contaminated Properties, Monticello, Utah, 9/27/1989. EPA/ROD/R08-89/025 1989. U.S. EPA Denver, CO, 1989.

U.S. EPA 1983—U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).

Final Environmental Impact Statement for Standards for the Control of Byproduct Materials from Uranium Ore Processing Volume I, EPA 520/1-83-008-1 Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, 1983.

U.S. NRC 1980—U.S. NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission).

Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling Project M-25, Volumes I and III NUREG-0706 Office of Nuclear Material – Safety and Safeguards – U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1980.

WISE 2004—World Information Service on Energy - Uranium Project (WISE).

Uranium Mill Tailings Deposits – USA. 2004.

http://www.wise-uranium.org/uddusa.htm

Read more:
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/tenorm/402-r-08-005-volii/402-r-08-005-v2-appiv.pdf

Risks Associated with Conventional Uranium Milling Operations

2011-12-11T07:18:00.002-05:00

Appendix IV.

Introduction

Although uranium mill tailings are considered byproduct materials under the AEA and not TENORM, EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) recommended that EPA present information on uranium mill operations, as well as

in situ leaching (ISL) mining operations, to provide a more complete picture of uranium production. While this report focuses on the impacts associated with conventional surface and underground uranium mines, it provides limited background materials, in this and other appendices, on risks associated with uranium milling and ISL operations and wastes generated by those processes, even though they may not be considered TENORM by virtue of their regulation by the NRC and its Agreement States under the Atomic Energy Act and its amendments.

The NRC stated its intent in July 2007 (NRC 2007b) to develop a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) on uranium milling which would provide more detailed information and may include more recent information on the impacts of uranium milling. The reader is referred to that document when made available to the public in the future for additional background information and associated risk assessment.

This appendix summarizes information on environmental and health aspects of uranium mill operations. The primary sources used for this review are "

Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials from Uranium Mining. Volume 1: Mining and Reclamation Background" by U.S. EPA (2006), "Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling Volume 1 and 2" by U.S. NRC (1980), "Final Environmental Impact Statement for Standards for the Control of Byproduct Materials from Uranium Ore Processing (40 CFR 192) Volume 1" by U.S. EPA (1983), and "Uranium Mining and Milling Wastes - An Introduction," by Peter Diehl of the WISE Uranium Project (2004).

Background

Uranium milling is the process of converting raw ore as it arrives from mining operations into a product known as uranium yellowcake. The raw uranium ore and resultant yellowcake are shown in Figure AVI-1, and a generalized schematic of a typical milling process is shown in Figure AVI-2.

The first steps in the milling process involve crushing and grinding the ore in order to obtain smaller, uniform particle sizes throughout.

Often, water is added during this stage to control dust, or lixiviant may also be added to facilitate the extraction process. Screens separate fine particles, which continue to the next stage in the milling process, from coarse particles, which are recirculated in the milling circuit. Dust that is not sufficiently suppressed by the addition of water/lixiviant is generally collected by air pollution control mechanisms, which return the fugitive particles to the milling process.

Once the ore is ground into uniform small particles, the processed ore moves to the leaching stage. In the most common leaching method, known as "acid leaching", uranium is removed from the processed ore with sulfuric acid. Sodium chlorate is also added as an oxidizing agent to improve the

olubility of the uranium. An alternative approach is alkaline leaching, which is preferable when the raw ore contains a significant portion of limestone (greater than 12%), because the acid leaching process then requires uneconomically large amounts of acid to be effective. Alkaline leaching, however, requires much finer grinding of the ore in comparison to acid leaching. Both methods of leaching have similar environmental and health impacts; however, the waste produced from acid leaching is generally more mobile and will be used as the bounding scenario in this treatment (U.S. EPA 1983).

Figure AIV-1. Raw Uranium Ore and Yellowcake Product
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/uran_enrich_fuel/uraniummill.html

After the leaching stage, the pregnant lixiviant generally contains about 50-60% solids. These solids, called "tailings," are filtered out and sent to on-site tailings piles or impoundments in the form of sands and slimes. Once most of the solids have been removed, the filtered lixiviant is transferred to an extraction circuit where the desired uranium is stripped from the pregnant lixiviant, followed by a precipitation and drying process, which produces the desired yellowcake product.

Potential Environmental and Health Issues from Mill Tailings

The wastes produced during the milling process and stored in tailings impoundments are the principal source of milling-related health and environmental hazards. Typical properties of these mill tailings are shown in Table AIV-1. During the milling process, nearly 90% of the uranium contained in the ore is removed, and so the primary radiological concern is the remaining progeny associated with uranium such as thorium, radium, radon, and lead. The actual activity of these uranium progeny can vary depending on the specific methods employed,; however, as much as 50-86% of the original activity of the ore is retained in the mill tailings (U.S. EPA 2006). Hazardous stable elements are also extracted from the ore and transferred to the tailings piles, including arsenic, copper, selenium, vanadium, molybdenum, and other trace heavy metals.

The five on-site environmental pathways through which these tailings impoundments pose a risk are represented schematically in Figure AVI-3. In addition to the on-site scenarios, tailings have also been taken off-site and used as an inexpensive building material by some local populations. Each of these hazard pathways is listed below and the associated risks are discussed later.

(i) The release of gaseous radon-222 to the atmosphere and subsequent inhalation

(ii) Possible dust loading of contaminants from the impoundment due to natural wind conditions

(iii) The localized effect of direct external gamma radiation exposure from the tailings impoundment

(iv) Ground seepage and subsequent contamination of local aquifers, which has the potential to affect the water supply

(v) Dam failure due to erosion or natural disasters (flood, earthquake, etc.)

(vi) Improper use of tailings as a building material

All six of these hazard scenarios can apply to the general public and, with the exception of building materials, to the plant workers themselves. In addition, plant workers have added risks associated with accidents that may occur within the mill. The additional issues associated with workers are

On-Site Accident and Risk Scenarios Associated with Uranium Mill Tailings

Source: http://www.wise-uranium.org/uwai.html

(i) Gaseous Radon-222 Inhalation

Radon-222 is an inert radioactive gas that can readily diffuse to the surface of a tailings impoundment where it would be released to the atmosphere. The main hazard of radon inhalation is the damage to the lung from four of its shorter-lived decay products (Po-218, Pb-214, Bi-214, and Po-214). Of particular concern are the two isotopes of polonium (Po-218 and Po-214), because they produce alpha particles, which are approximately 20 times more destructive than gamma or beta radiation. Because radon-222 has a half-life of approximately 3.8 days, it has the opportunity travel a significant distance in the atmosphere before decaying. U.S. EPA (1983) states that the health of populations living at a distance greater than 80 km from a tailings pile might be affected. The radon concentration at the edge of a typical tailings pile is approximately 4 pCi/l (WISE 2004). Using the methodology outlined in Chapter 1 of this report, a year-long exposure under these conditions would correspond to a lifetime risk of lung cancer of 1.1x10
-2.

(ii) Inhalation of Particles from Dust Loading

Dust loading occurs when wind blows over a dried portion of the tailings and dust containing hazardous contaminants is suspended in the air. Dust loading typically becomes a hazard in the post-operational phase of a uranium mill, as the tailings pile begins to dry, and may be exacerbated by any de-watering treatment that is performed to minimize ground seepage [see section (iv)]. The hazards associated with dust loading are dependent on the weather conditions and the amount of dried material that is available for suspension. It has been estimated that a person would have to inhale 2 grams of uranium mill tailings in a year to reach the annual dose limit for the general public (100

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/tenorm/402-r-08-005-volii/402-r-08-005-v2-appiv.pdf

Study projects benefits, risks from uranium

2011-12-10T21:38:00.009-05:00

Comment: Va's risk: hurricanes, Tornadoes, earthquakes, floods,

Keep The Ban on Uranium Mining in VA: ‎150 people packed the room last night (a majority wearing Keep the Ban stickers) to hear the results of the socioeconomic study on uranium mining in Virginia. The result? "If the site is mismanaged, then the consequences could cost more than the uranium ore deposit is worth."

Posted: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 10:42 am
Tim Davis/Womack Publishing News Service

Tornado on White Oak Mt in Spring, Again another Tornado in Nov.

A proposed uranium mine in Pittsylvania County would bring an economic windfall to the region with little risk to the environment, health and farming, according to a study released Wednesday.

The report, "The Socioeconomic Impact of Uranium Mining and Milling in the Chatham Labor Shed, Virginia," was prepared by Chmura Economics & Analytics of Richmond.

The Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy's Uranium Mining Subcommittee commissioned the $200,000 study with funding from the Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission.

The uranium subcommittee presented Chmura's findings Tuesday evening at the Educational and Cultural Center in Chatham

Chmura acknowledged that its figures are based on the assumption that the uranium mine will be operated continuously and ultimately decommissioned within established federal guidelines, "which, by law, reduce environmental and public health risks to the surrounding communities to near negligible levels.

"Under the baseline scenario - a set of circumstances Chmura judges to be the most likely to occur - the industry brings substantial economic benefits to the region and the costs and risks to region's image, public health and environment are modest," the report concludes.

Chmura noted, however, that the benefits "drop considerably if environmental contamination exceeds federal guidelines.

"In a worst-case scenario the industry could present a substantial net cost to Virginia," the report warned.

Worst-case scenario

The report did cite concerns about the nuclear disaster in Japan and recent earthquake in Virginia.

"The possibility for extensive environmental degradation due to unseen natural disasters can never be ruled out," Chmura said.

It also looked at consequences if environmental contamination from the uranium mine exceeds limits set by federal standards.

Under such a scenario, Chmura assumed that approximately 1,350 homes within a five-mile radius could lose 30 percent of their value, resulting in a $76.9 million loss of real estate value and $400,000 in property taxes.

"Given the assumption that the environmental impact from the Coles Hill site exceeds federal standards, Chmura judges that both the agricultural and tourism sector could suffer from a negative stigma," the report said.

"The economic impact of this decline...is significant, since the agricultural and tourism sectors account for annual economic contributions of $409 million and $306 million, respectively," the report states.

"A 20 percent loss in both agriculture and tourism would yield a total yearly economic loss to Virginia of roughly $80.1 and $110.9 million, respectively, and the loss of more than 2,800 jobs."

Read more:
http://www.wpcva.com/altavista/news/local/article_87e5db28-20ea-11e1-82a5-0019bb2963f4.html

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000229210764&ref=tn_tnmn#!/KeepTheBan

Series of Uranium Milling Operations

2011-12-10T05:49:00.013-05:00

Appendix IV. Risks Associated with Conventional Uranium Milling Operations

Introduction

This appendix summarizes information on environmental and health aspects of uranium mill operations. The primary sources used for this review are "

Background

The first steps in the milling process involve crushing and grinding the ore in order to obtain smaller, uniform particle sizes throughout. Often, water is added during this stage to control dust, or lixiviant may also be added to facilitate the extraction process. Screens separate fine particles, which continue to the next stage in the milling process, from coarse particles, which are recirculated in the milling circuit. Dust that is not sufficiently suppressed by the addition of water/lixiviant is generally collected by air pollution control mechanisms, which return the fugitive particles to the milling process.

solubility of the uranium. An alternative approach is alkaline leaching, which is preferable when the raw ore contains a significant portion of limestone (greater than 12%), because the acid leaching process then requires uneconomically large amounts of acid to be effective. Alkaline leaching, however, requires much finer grinding of the ore in comparison to acid leaching. Both methods of leaching have similar environmental and health impacts; however, the waste produced from acid leaching is generally more mobile and will be used as the bounding scenario in this treatment (U.S. EPA 1983).
Read more:
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/tenorm/402-r-08-005-volii/402-r-08-005-v2-appiv.pdf

Sen. Bill Stanley wants time to review mining studies

2011-12-09T17:32:00.002-05:00

RICHMOND — Sen. Bill Stanley doesn’t want lawmakers to let the uranium “genie out of the bottle” without taking the time to review pertinent studies, as uranium legislation is expected in the upcoming General Assembly session.

Sens. Stanley, R-Franklin County, and Frank Wagner, R-Virginia Beach, provided their perspectives during a uranium mining panel discussion with a uranium mining company representative and an environmentalist during Wednesday’s “AP Day at the Capitol,” an annual legislative preview to the media. Danville Register & Bee publisher Steve Kaylor moderated.

But Stanley and Cale Jaffe, senior attorney of Southern Environmental Law Center, do not want a uranium bill rushed through the legislative process until the public fully digests studies released this month.

Because lawmakers aren’t uranium experts, the National Academy of Sciences scientific report due any day now will fuel a “spirited debate,” but it won’t say whether uranium can be mined safely in Virginia. That’s a policy decision for lawmakers, Jaffe said.

But Stanley and Jaffe said they don’t want to leave the public out of the uranium debate. When the Coal and Energy Commission requested NAS to study the issue last year, the contract stipulated five months of dissemination of findings in public meetings, Jaffe said.

Then residents could share their views with their representatives.

http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2011/dec/07/sen-bill-stanley-wants-time-review-mining-studies-ar-1527953/

New Uranium Study Fails to Paint Whole Picture

2011-12-09T04:59:00.003-05:00

December 1, 2011

A new study on the impacts of uranium mining in Southside Virginia says there are potential benefits but "assumes that the site would be operated and dismantled within established federal guidelines and concludes that the potential impact on real estate values would be 'minimal.'"

Communities across Virginia have serious concerns about uranium's effects to the ecosystems they depend on, the water they drink, and how it will honestly affect their economy. We deserve to see the whole picture and we need all the facts.

Get the Facts:

Initial reactions to the study are quick to question its methodology. The study's failure to include long term costs in order present the most favorable numbers possible is a specific concern.
"Pervasive flooding" is a regular occurrence at the site where they could   store uranium, which increase the risk of radioactive contamination according   to a September study by the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League. (Washington   Times)

"[A] brief review," by the Piedmont   Environmental Council, "raises several issues on methodology and   assumptions and gives weight to a number of our long-standing concerns with   lifting the ban on mining and milling in Virginia."

Uranium mining and the storage of the toxic waste it produces could   contaminate the city of Virginia Beach's water supply for up to two years   after the pollution occurs. (Washington   Times)

The new study's net cost to taxpayers number for a worst-case scenario is   between $6.6 billion to over $10 billion, even without long-term   costs. Long-term costs must be included in order for us to get all the   facts. (Gene Addesso, Roanoke River Basin Association's acting president, Washington   Post)

The study admits that the uranium mine owners could reduce production   levels, or even stop it altogether if the price of uranium goes down. But the   study does not report what the cost to taxpayers would be if that were to   happen, nor how much increased environmental risk there would be due to the   lack of radioactive waste oversight if they fired employees to save money.   (Gene Addesso, Roanoke River Basin Association's acting president, Washington   Post)

read more
http://www.progressva.org/progressivepoint/new-uranium-study-fails-to-paint-whole-picture.html

Meeting: Cancelled

2011-12-08T20:16:00.001-05:00

Legislative Interim Meeting Notice Coal and Energy Commission Uranium Mining Subcommittee

Subject: THIS MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELLED

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

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

New Meeting : Briefing from the National Academy of Sciences' study

2011-12-08T11:20:00.001-05:00

Legislative Interim Meeting Notice
Coal and Energy, Virginia Commission on

New Meeting: Briefing from the National Academy of Sciences' study

Subject: JOINT MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING ( CORRECTION)

Meeting Date: Monday, December 19, 2011
End Date: Monday, December 19, 2011

Meeting Time: 01:30 PM

Location: House Room D, General Assembly Building

Address: 901 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Contact: Martin Farber, Division of Legislative Services, (804) 786-3591
Scott Meacham, Division of Legislative Services (804) 786-3591
Bill Owen, House Committee Operations, (804) 698-1540

Information:
There will be a joint meeting of The House Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee

and The Coal and Energy Commission on Monday, December 19, 2011 in House Room D. GAB at 1:30 PM.

There will be a briefing from the National Academy of Sciences' study of the health safety and environmental impact of uranium mining.

This is also a Public Hearing.

http://dela.state.va.us/Dela/ComOpsStudy.nsf/FB72CC61CD3B2450852577990056CC19/7201FA9270AC3D5A8525796000454BF3?OpenDocument

Virginia ponders uranium mining

2011-12-08T07:07:00.010-05:00

By Laura Conaway
Thu Dec 1, 2011 10:01 AM EST

Progressives are bracing for the new VA govt agenda.

On the wish list, apparently, is opening the state to uranium mining. The process of digging the gold of the nuclear industry out of the ground is a fraught proposition, with the potential for environmental degradation that starts with chemicals contaminating the ground water and goes all the way to radioactive tailings.

Yesterday a state-ordered study of a proposed uranium mine in Pittsylvania County predicted that the mine would add 1,000 jobs, $3.1 million in tax revenue and $135 million boost for the economy -- over 35 years. Environmentalists citing the same study tell the Washington Post that if things go wrong, the project could end up costing Virginia taxpayers more than $6.6 billion.

What are clean air and clean water and the security of a non-irradiated future worth, anyway? Up top, a short documentary about the project that's worth seeing, I think.

The mining company involved, Virginia Uranium, gave gifts to 140 members of the Virginia legislature last year, the WaPo reports. The top five giftees were Republican. For Virginia Uranium, the big hurdle is that the state hasn't got the regulations needed for uranium mining, so the company can't proceed. New rules are out for study by the National Academy of Sciences. Meanwhile, the politics play out. From D.C. Bureau:

“We’re not sitting still while the NAS study is going on. In January of 2012, we will have a bill in the state legislature that directs the Department of Mineral, Mines and Energy to develop the regulations of uranium mining.

When asked who would introduce the bill, Coles Jr. said, “We have a number of legislators who have offered.”

read more -
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/01/9139998-totally-in-charge-virginia-gop-ponders-uranium-mining

Go Green: How to green your holidays.

2011-12-07T05:05:00.010-05:00

By Carolyn Sperry
GateHouse News Service
Posted Nov 22, 2011 @ 03:05 PM

This holiday season, you can cut back on waste and make your celebration more thoughtful by focusing on the homemade, the locally made, and the reusable. You’ll go easier on the earth’s resources and have more interesting gifts to offer friends and family. And remember: memories are made by enjoying our loved ones, not by using oodles of packaging or buying the latest electronics (which will be laughably outdated in five years anyway).

Christmas:

Give gifts without excess packaging.

Buy locally-made goods and you’ll not only give unique presents, you’ll also cut down on transportation waste and throw your support to your own community.

Antique stores, flea markets or even thrift stores can be great places to find thoughtful gifts that already exist and therefore don’t use more energy to make. If you have the time and inclination, homemade gifts can be both inexpensive and meaningful.

Send e-cards instead of mailed ones and you’ll save time, money and a lot of waste.

Take a deep breath and think before shopping. Excess goods don’t really make people happy, and countless unwanted gifts end up donated or even trashed. If you’re on the receiving end of a not-so-amazing gift, remember to donate it so someone else can make use of it.

Save Christmas cards to make repurposed tags for next year’s gifts. Gift bags can be re-used, as can creative coverings like fabric and scarves. You can even re-use wrapping paper, ribbons and bows—if done artfully, no one will notice.

Read more: http://www.tauntongazette.com/archive/x2128793470/Go-Green-How-to-green-your-holidays#ixzz1ewiXXxkQ

Chmura uranium mining study released

2011-12-06T04:42:00.018-05:00

SoVaNow.com / November 30, 2011

One of two new studies that legislators will consider before deciding whether to lift Virginia’s ban on uranium mining has been submitted to the General Assembly.

A study of the socio-economic impact of the Coles Hill mine in Pittsylvania County, conducted by Richmond-based Chmura Economics & Analytics, concludes that the mining and milling operation proposed by Virginia Uranium Inc. (VUI) “would bring substantial and much needed economic benefits to Pittsylvania County, the immediately surrounding areas, and the state.”

The socio-economic study outlines a number of future operating scenarios for the Coles Hill operation, largely leaving an assessment of the risks to a separate study being conducted by the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS report is due to be released in early December.

Assessing the economic impacts, Chmura estimates the project will support more than 1,000 jobs annually over a 35 year period, the anticipated lifespan of the operation, and provide a $135 million annual boost to the local and state economy.

The estimates account for possible negative factors such as devalued land values and stigma effects around the mine, as well as the cost of regulation and increased demand for public services.

“The possibility for extensive environmental degradation due to unseen natural disasters can never be ruled out,” the report cautions.

The study assumes that VUI will mine underground rather than use open-pit methods to extract Coles Hill’s estimated 119-million pound ore deposit. It also assumes a world price for uranium of $60 per pound for yellowcake uranium, but offers separate scenarios for market prices at $75 and $45 per pound.

In two of the four environmental scenarios studied by the firm, the uranium mine would have “clearly substantial and positive economic effects” on Pittsylvania County and on the state as a whole.

If the mine project creates a “severe environmental impact” — pollution that exceeds allowable federal standards for water and at least one other category of soil, air or noise — it would have “unambiguously … a negative net economic impact no matter how long the site operates before environmental contamination reached the levels assumed in this scenario,” the report concludes.

The Chmura study was commissioned by the Virginia Tobacco Commission and will be presented to the uranium subcommittee of the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission, which will meet in Richmond Dec. 12. By that time the uranium panel also expects to have in hand a second technical study, by the National Academy of Sciences, on the feasibility of mining in Pittsylvania County.

Marty Farber, senior research associate with the Division of Legislative Services, said Wednesday the NAS study “may be a little late” —he said he had hoped to receive it by Dec. 1 — but members of the subcommittee will have copies in hand before their upcoming meeting.

“Hopefully we’ll have a couple of days in advance so people can look at the report before it is presented by [staff with] the National Academy,” Farber said.

“I think they’ll receive the report. I don’t know what will happen after that,” he said

http://www.sovanow.com/index.php?/news/article/chmura_uranium_mining_study_released/

Meeting: Socioeconomic Report on Uranium Mining Released

2011-12-05T05:34:00.001-05:00

On Tuesday, December 6th the Virginia Coal & Energy Commission is hosting a public meeting focused on the potential economic impacts of uranium mining in Chatham.

Will you join us on Tuesday, December 6th at 6pm to tell the Coal and Energy Commission to Keep the Ban on Uranium Mining in Virginia?

As you know, uranium mining is a dirty and dangerous practice that will leave our communities with a legacy of toxic waste. The uranium mining industry has a bad track record of abandoning towns with polluted water despite promises of an economic boom. We need good quality, well paying jobs to rebuild the Southside Virginia’s economy not an industry that threatens our farms, public health and the cultural heritage of the region that we all know and love.

Here are all the details:

Virginia Coal & Energy Commission Meeting
Tuesday December 6th
6:00pm – 8:00pm
Pittsylvania Educational and Cultural Center Auditorium, 39 Bank Street, Chatham

The Coal & Energy Commission’s sub committee on Uranium Mining will receive a presentation of a socioeconomic study by Chmura Analysis and Analytics. Check out a recent post on our website to learn more about the Chmura study.

There will be an opportunity for questions at the event but no public comment. The most important thing is to be present to show your support for the current ban on uranium mining to the committee.

http://keeptheban.org/?p=1169
Thank you for your support and we’ll see you there.

Meeting: Legislative Interim Meeting Notice Coal and Energy Commission Uranium Mining Subcommittee

2011-12-04T14:51:00.000-05:00

Legislative Interim Meeting Notice Coal and Energy Commission Uranium Mining Subcommittee

*New Meeting*

Subject: MEETING NOTICE

Meeting Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2011
End Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Meeting Time: 06:00 PM

Location: Pittsylvania County Educational and Cultural Center

Address: 39 Bank Street Chatham, Virginia 24531

Please be advised that the Uranium Mining Subcommittee of Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy will meet on Tuesday, December 6, 2011 at 6:00 PM in the auditorium of Pittsylvania Educational and Cultural Center in Chatham, Virginia.

This is not a public hearing but a presentation of the Socio-Economic Study

Location of the The Socioeconomic Impact of Uranium Mining and Milling in the Chatham:
http://lis.virginia.gov/111/oth/uranium.120611.pdf

The subcommittee will not receive public comments but will accept questions from the public on specific items in the report, and will accept written comments from the public on the report.

Should you have questions regarding the meeting agenda, please call Marty Farber with the Division of Legislative Services at (804) 786-3591. If you are unable to attend, call House Committee Operations At (804) 698-1540 or contact me via e-mail
bowen@house.virginia.gov

Contact:
Martin Farber, Division of Legislative Services (804) 786-3591
Scott Meachan, Division of Legislative Services (804) 786-3591
Bill Owen, House Committee Operations (804) 698-1540

League of Individuals for the Environment, Inc.

Point/Counterpoint: Diverse coalition seeks to keep ban in place

Uranium: Point/Counterpoint

Keep Ban on Uranium Mining in Virginia

Uranium mining opponents present `yellowcake’ to legislators

Virginia Deserves the Same Protections as the Grand Canyon

Citizens pack General Assembly offices to voice opposition to uranium mining

Uranium mining opponents return to Richmond

Citizens pack General Assembly offices to voice opposition to uranium mining

Uranium mining opponents present `yellowcake' to legislators

Colorado uranium workers may get compensation

Uranium mining won't bring promised good life

Dr. Doug Brugge at Elks: Impact of uranium mining in Colorado

Help Keep the Roanoke River Free of Uranium!

Uranium: The Deadliest Metal

Tell the Governor: Radioactive Decisions Shouldn't Be Made in the Dark

Ontario Lung Association-Radon: The Risk is Real, Especially for Smokers

Governor McDonnell Asks General Assembly to Keep Uranium Mining Moratorium in Place in 2012

The Consequences of Toxic Uranium

Infectious Fungus Common In Household Drains

WISE Uranium Project - Slide Talk

Potential hazards from uranium mill tailings

Online chat on uranium mining: Monday, Jan. 16

Grand Canyon Victory: New mining ban at last!

Future of the Piedmont: More time needed to study uranium

8 of the World’s Healthiest Spices & Herbs You Should Be Eating

Keep the Ban Dance Concert Planned: January 12 at 7:30 p.m. at Dogtown Roadhouse

Lawmakers seek to stall uranium vote in General Assembly

More answers needed on uranium

URANIUM: Known Facts and Hidden Dangers

URANIUM: Known Facts and Hidden Dangers

Editorial: Postpone uranium decision

Locals react to uranium study

Leave Virginia’s uranium mining ban in place

Press Release: NAS

Radon test kits available as part of National Radon Month

Who will pay long-term costs of uranium mining?

Halifax group joins coalition to keep moratorium on uranium mining

Subject: Thirst

Happy New Year - Stay Safe

Uranium mining study

New group - including former NASCAR driver - wants to continue state uranium mining ban

New Web Site: Read the Reports

Pittsylvania County farmer takes uranium mining debate to heart

Leave Virginia's uranium mining ban in place

A turn in the road? General Assembly to weigh pros, cons of uranium mining

Exposure Pathways from Uranium Mining and Waste Disposal

Radionuclides: Common Exposure Pathways and Health Risks

Ionizing radiation

What is Ionizing Radiation?

Speed-bump device converts traffic energy to electricity

19 Easy Home Winterization Projects

Top Officials Tour Electronic Waste Recycler

NAS Meeting

7 Of The Dirtiest Surfaces In North America

NAS Report Validates Major Environmental, Health Concerns Raised by Uranium Mining Opponents

Company to build site for testing windmills that could go offshore

*New Meeting* : Briefing from the National Academy of Sciences' study/Agenda

Uranium Mining

Uranium Mining Studies

Report: Uranium mining risky but a boom

Report provides uranium discussion framework

National Academy of Science to release "Uranium Mining in Virginia" Report Dec. 19th

Uranium mining, milling threatens water, report claims

RTI Uranium Study - Press Release

Fairfax Water looking at impact of uranium mining

Articles: Problems with Uranium Mining

Meeting: Uranium Mining and Milling at Coles Hill, Virginia: Possible Impacts on the Surrounding Region

Uranium Mining – The Virginia Battleground – Environmental Concerns vs. Corporate Interests Part Three

Uranium Mining – The Virginia Battleground – Environmental Concerns vs. Corporate Interests Part Two

Uranium Mining – The Virginia Battleground – Environmental Concerns vs. Corporate Interests - Part !

Mining studies to be presented in area meetings

Risks Associated with Conventional Uranium Milling Operations

Risks Associated with Conventional Uranium Milling Operations

Study projects benefits, risks from uranium

Series of Uranium Milling Operations

Sen. Bill Stanley wants time to review mining studies

New Uranium Study Fails to Paint Whole Picture

Meeting: Cancelled

*New Meeting* : Briefing from the National Academy of Sciences' study

New Meeting : Briefing from the National Academy of Sciences' study/Agenda

New Meeting : Briefing from the National Academy of Sciences' study