Virginia Uranium: Let's get the information!

(UPDATE: For all of my posts pertaining to the Pittsylvania Uranium debate, please click here)

I just got home (OK, not "just" - it's now two hours later, and OOooo! My .wma file of the interview finally uploaded! You should right-click and "save file as" to your desktop and listen to it from there) from an extended interview and tour of Virginia Uranium, Inc.,  with Walter Coles, Jr. He introduced me to his father as well as Mick Mastilovic, the VP of Operations. All three gentlemen were gracious and willing to give me all the information they had; they answered questions fully, and emphasized their concern for safety and for our community.

For the record, on their behalf but not at their request, I believe them to be men of good character who are truly concerned for what is best for our community and its safety and well-being. I have seen charges of deceit and lying levelled against the Coles elsewhere, and from the information I have at this time, I find those allegations ignorant at best and libellous at worst - and I realize that some may find that statement worthy of attack.

However, considering that I am simply a concerned citizen - and not even a blogger of great renown and influence - they were happy to patiently answer any questions I had, and would keep answering until I understood the data and the issues involved. The openness and focus they had on educating me about uranium, uranium mining, and the safety issues involved were refreshing. I would encourage anyone to contact them to request a similar interview and tour, and I am confident that the staff of Virginia Uranium would jump at the opportunity to show others what they are all about.

Should the "opposition" wish to conduct an interview with me in a similar manner, I would certainly be delighted to accommodate them. My first question to them would be, "Why would you be uninterested in a scientific study by an impartial source which would give us firm information on safety risks concerning possible mining in this area?" In my opinion, the more information we have, the better decisions we make. So, why shouldn't the study be done?

Mr. Coles stated that the money to fund the study would be provided by Virginia Uranium, not Virginia taxpayers. He stated that the company was extremely motivated to have the study done by an impartial source with no follow-on interests. If, for instance, Virginia Tech were to do the study, they might be inclined to be biased in favor of results which would promote uranium mining; after all, many of their graduates might eventually be employed by VUI. However, Virginia Uranium is interested in institutions which will conduct the study without expectations of return.

At this point, Virginia Uranium is interested in knowing whether uranium mining can be done safely here in Pittsylvania County. From what they told me, even if the study started tomorrow, it looks like a minimum of perhaps three years before any solid, scientifically-backed answers could be provided - possibly even longer. Therefore, I am all for going ahead with the study so that we all have hard evidence on which to base our decision as to whether we want to support or oppose uranium mining.

The full audio file of the interview and presentation they gave in the office this morning is here (again, right-click and "save as" to listen to it from your computer - thanks for the suggestion Isophorone!). It is a .wma file (44megs!), and over 90 minutes long, but I present it without editing in the interest of full and fair disclosure. It will take a while to listen to, but I hope you do. Over the next few days, I plan on commenting on several of the questions we covered, and I hope also to post my video shots from the site where they are drilling for tests.

I received a warm response from Walter-the-Younger when I suggested that I return and get a series of videos interviewing the staff about what VUI is doing, how they acquire the samples, safety procedures and so on. I believe that interviews and videos like this can educate both me and the general public so that we can all make informed choices.

Please don't let the words "uranium mining" stampede you into the "not in my back yard" mentality. Let Virginia Uranium have the study done - heck, get LOTS of studies done! - and then we can have the debate over whether or not we want the mine.

Comments

[Isophorone]

1.

You might want to request that people right click on your WMA file link, save it to desktop (or somewhere else on their computers), and THEN listen to the interview. That way your sever doesn't get all clogged up.

[Isophorone]

2.

Server, not sever. Sorry, I didn't poofread.

[Kat]

3.

Oh, good call! I'll update the post right away!

[Alton Foley]

4.

Kat, could you call Elizabeth Haskell and request an interview as well. She is the Vice-President of the Martinsville Bulletin and is an outspoken opponent of uranium mining in Pittsylvania County. Consequently, the Bulletin has yet to do any stories on the issue.

[Gregg Vickrey]

5.

Hi Kat,

I would love to arrange for you to interview the concerned parties in Southside Concerned Citizens. Please email me at your convinience.

Gregg Vickrey

[Karen Schneider]

6.

The issue of contamination from uranium is not evidenced in an unrefined lump of raw uranium ore one can hold in their hand. The contamination threat comes from the residue of uranium mining and milling which is known as "tailings" - this material is what infiltrates the ground, the ground water, creeks and rivers and can also become airborne. Please look into the aftermath of uranium mining on the environment in New Mexico, Utah, Colarado, and also Nevada. And bear in mind that these are arid states. Nonetheless they have experienced water contamination. Uranium mining is not feasible without tremendous risk in the eastern states. Which is why it has not been done. In Virginia there is a great deal more rain and the aquifer is much more permeable than arid states and therefore the risk very much greater. Not to mention the severe weather we encounter. Residuals from hurricanes and tornados for starters. Then ask Mr. Coles Sr. or Jr. what makes their situation so unique it is outside of these parameters. Please do not trust the words of those who stand to make millions, and tried to open this same can of worms in the 1980s. They met opposition then from the local community then also. Plus, the price of uranium fell sharply making the mining it unprofitable. It is all about the money. Go to google and do some searches on the long term effects of uranium mining. Thanks

[Azygos]

7.

"However, considering that I am simply a concerned citizen - and not even a blogger of great renown and influence."

Ah, but to those of us who read you...

[Kat]

8.

I have readers?! ;-)

Thank you, Azygos - what a lovely compliment!

[Virginia native]

9.

The "just want a study" pitch is simply hard to believe. I'm sure they appear genuine and put on a well-polished show, but this company -- and its investors -- have a very detailed, aggressive business plan -- and one that includes mining Coles Hill. (They have a LOT at stake $$$) Be cautious about how you describe opponents to uranium mining in Virginia; Many are not "fear-mongering" or "ignorant" people some proponents claim they are (that's a common tactic). In fact, many opponents are extremely intelligent and have done their homework. Why do you think they are fighting so hard to protect their neighbors and the natural resources of Virginia for future generations? Check out Web sites like www.powertechexposed.com, www.nunnglow.com or www.coloradoguard.org for some examples of how uranium mining is affecting communities in Colorado. Risks are inherent with mining, and throw in Virginia's severe weather events and you begin gambling with residents' well-being and their natural resources. There are no "do-overs" when it comes to uranium, and no uranium company on this planet can provide a 100 percent guarantee that an "act of nature" wouldn't cause an environmental accident (or disaster). I don't like personal attacks either, but the folks at Virginia Uranium don't "just want a study." I have family in Pittsylania County, and I pray lawmakers protect them by not throwing caution -- and radioactive dust -- to the wind by allowing uranium mining and milling to occur in such a populous area. Oh wait, I'm sure VU has devised some sort of wind-free, flood-free, tornado-free, hurricane-free zone around their mining area, right?

[Kat]

10.

Why? Why the hell is it "so hard to believe"? Do you have evidence that they are not men of character and integrity? Do you believe that getting as much current, accurate information as possible is not worthwhile?

I am not for or against the mine at the moment, but I am completely baffled by people who do not even want the study conducted. Frankly, it smacks of minds that are so made up in their own opinion that God Himself could speak from on high and it wouldn't make a difference.

I am curious. Let's say the study went forward, let's say ot did come back as "safe to mine" - what kind of evidences and tests do you believe need to be conducted and with what results so that you would be convinced that this would be within acceptably safe parameters?

Seriously.

What evaluations would you feel are necessary, what tests need to be made, what institutions would need to be involved in the testing, etc., would need to conduct the studies so that you would accept and be confident in a mine opening up here in Pittsylvania County?

I *know* you're against it "for safety and health reasons" - at least that's what you all say. What if all the most reputable science, scientists and unbiased institutions all said "it's OK." On what would you then base your objections to the mine?

Or do you simply want an undeliverable 100% guarantee that nothing will ever go wrong? You know, the kind of guarantee you couldn't have even if you never left your own bedroom...

[Virginia native]

11.

No one is assaulting anyone's integrity or character, and I believe I refrained from using profanity -- unlike yourself. For one, a full risk assessment would need to be part of any study. That is, when investigators look at the effects of mining, they should include the exposure patterns to workers, people in the community, wildlife and so on. And the study should look at a variety of exposures: e.g., a worker exposed to uranium at the job site for 40 hours a week over the course of a 20-year work life (or longer); a child playing outdoors for an hour a day at a park 10 miles from the mining site, who might be exposed to airborne (and possible radioactive) particles stirred up by mining and carried by wind); an outdoorsman who eats two fish per week caught from waters downstream from mining runoff or discharge, etc., etc. In short, if you can think up an “exposure” scenario, whomever is conducting the study should assess the risk. It costs them little to add a host of exposure patterns to a comprehensive risk assessment. Also note radiation is certainly a cancer risk. And risk assessments have historically been required to check for the “excess” risk of cancer (that is, beyond the prevailing rate) of at least one in 10,000 people exposed. But a good risk assessment pushes that to one in a million. Put another way, exposure to a carcinogen would add one cancer case per every one million people in the community. Doesn’t sound like much, and that’s the way companies (and the epa, under certain administrations) like to frame it. But put yourselves in the shoes of that one person. Risk assessments get a lot tighter when pushed beyond the 1:10,000 range.
I don't need a study to tell me that a trip on the space shuttle has inherent risks, and I have enough information to fully comprehend that mining radioactive ore through open pit, underground or in-situ leaching in a populous, severe weather-prone state like Virginia would be an experiment that could have very costly and irreparable consequences. Enough said.

[Kat]

12.

*I* have used profanity? Well, yes, I have upon occasion - but not on this post, nor, to my recollection on any other of the uranium posts. Pretty poor attempt at a straw man, dude.

VA Native, you realize, of course, that you probably take more risks driving down to the grocery store? You also realize that not all of those risks are under your personal control? Nothing is 100% safe, nothing ever will be.

You still have not answered the question - if the risk level goes down, confirmed, to only an additional one in ten million? A hundred million? What would satisfy you? Do you want to have everyone wrapped up in anti-radiation suits so that the one person in a billion doesn't get cancer?

Again, life is full of risk; you're never going to have perfect certainty of perfect safety. My point still stands, however, that it is better to HAVE the best information we can possibly have before we go one way or another on the uranium mine.

As to the implications against the Coles' character, well, an awful lot of people are insisting that they are only out for the money, that they're going to push this through no matter what... And they have given no evidence of past behavior or anything which which to back up these assertions. Is that slander? Well, no, probably not - but it certainly smacks of malicious gossip and fear-mongering to me.

I am not out to specifically change anyone's mind - that's not in my power. I am earnestly advocating that we get all the information we can both pro and con and make our decisions in a dispassionate, logical manner.

Is that so bad a thing?

[Virginia native]

13.

"Why the hell is it 'so hard to believe'?" That line did come from your post earlier tonight, right? Maybe you don't consider that profanity but I don't speak that way in front of my children. :)
Seriously though, if you took time to read my post it clearly states no one is assaulting anyone's integrity or character. I know you clearly like the folks you met, and I'm sure they welcomed the chance to give you their presentation.
I'm curious though, have you done ANY research into Virginia Uranium Ltd. (a YUKON company)? If that entity wants to make a profit, it needs to mine the uranium -- that's the bottom line. Virginia Uranium has 15 registered lobbyists (as of Jan. 10) working in Richmond to push their agenda. You can be defensive and believe they "just want a study," but realize they are putting a lot of money behind making sure they can mine Coles Hill. That doesn't qualify as "malicious gossip."
Again, to claim anyone legitimately concerned about residents' health and Virginia's natural resources is "fear mongering" is ridiculous (and a common tactic proponents like to use to discredit anyone who protests the historically risky business of uranium mining and milling). Residents have a right to protect themselves, their families and their land & water.
If you want people to visit your blog and make decisions "in a dispassionate, logical manner" then it may be wise to practice what you preach. I'll check back in a few months after you've had time to properly research the scientific and known risks of uranium mining & milling by use of various methods.
Take care & God bless!

[James Clark]

14.

It's a tough balance in a situation when you want alternative fuels to protect the environment, and by doing so you somehow cause harm to the environment.

The fact remains, gentle folks, we are facing our end of fossil fuels for any real practical sense in the not so distant future, and /require/ alternatives in order to sustain the way of life we have made for ourselves.

If you plan to ditch the air conditioner, heat, and electricity, it becomes an easy argument.

However, simply arguing that "this is unsafe" without proper studies, and many many unbiased people looking into it, we cannot know what the true outcome potential is.

History has taught us several things. Not the least of which, is what mistakes were made that caused issue with other mining facilities, etc. Can we not trust that modern advances can learn from those mistakes, and avoid them? Better care, and stronger rules to force compliance on safety, not only for workers, but, for neighbors, and environmental concern.

We /need/ alternatives, and as time moves on, we are running out of options. If someone has a better idea, I'm all ears.

Yes, they will make tons of money, but, there are many many charities in the US that make TONS of money and give very little to the people they are supposed to be supporting (re: veterans, et al).

It's not right nor fair to belittle and judge because they stand to make money, so long as the Cole's, and others involved, adhere to strict guidelines, and are willing to participate in community discussions, and safety measures for the environment. Yes, they have a motive to make money. But, the sheer effort of involving people in such a way tells me they are genuinely interested in doing the right thing.

The Cole's are people just like the rest of the community, and they have to live in this same area. Would they be so quick to cause damage to their environment for a few million dollars? Not every person is evil, and willing to sell out. Give them a chance to look into the matter, and consider whether we have alternatives that are viable.

Or, we could mine asteroids? That /has/ to be safe :)

Any ideas are going to be costly somehow, and in some way. At least consider that alternatives are the way of the future, and growing corn won't be the sustainable resolution for large scale consumption without yet some other impact. Such as "strip mining soil nutrients" etc.