CatHouse Chat

Uranium mining issue plagued by myths and misconceptions

Lt. Gov. Bolling swung though Pittsylvania County on Friday, 14 December, to announce his opposition to lifting the "ban" on uranium mining at the Cole's Hill property. Sadly, he seems to be more concerned with the myths and fears surrounding uranium than he is in the facts:

...even though two well respected organizations have completed reviews of the efficacy of removing the ban on uranium mining and milling, I believe there are still too many unanswered questions regarding the potential impact that an incident at the mine might have on the environment and, subsequently, citizens in Southern Virginia and beyond.  Given these legitimate environmental concerns, I believe the ban on uranium mining should remain in place.

It's quite sad that he still has questions, because Virginia Uranium was available and willing to answer him:

In a statement, Virginia Uranium complained that Bolling has refused its invitation to tour the so-called Coles Hill site of the uranium deposit and attempts to brief him on the scientific and technical aspects of its mining and milling plan.

"We took Lt. Gov. Bolling at his word when he claimed to support the expansion of Virginia's nuclear power sector and an 'all of the above' approach to energy policy," Patrick Wales, the company's project manager, said in a statement. He added that Bolling is "clearly pursuing a 'some of the above' energy policy that is the antithesis of free enterprise and free markets."

While this doesn't really surprise me, considering Bolling's political implosion over the past few weeks, I do find it very irritating that Bolling seems willing to sacrifice the economy of Pittsylvania to draw some thin support for the sinking possibility of a "possible" independent  run for Governor.

Sadly, as Jim Hoeft notes over on Bearing Drift, this also indicates an incredible lack of leadership, as well as quite a bit of hypocrisy on Bolling's part. The website for his gubenatorial run (and here's a screenshot, in case the site is taken down) clearly states Bolling's support of nuclear energy:

Governor McDonnell and Lieutenant Governor Bolling believe in an “all of the above“ approach to energy policy. They strongly support the expansion of traditional forms of energy, such as coal, natural gas and nuclear power; but they also support expanding renewable forms of energy in Virginia, such as wind, solar and biofuels.

Well, Mr. Bolling, nuclear energy requires fuel - and at the moment, we IMPORT most of the fuel for our nuclear energy plants. Many of the countries which supply uranium have governments which are unstable or hostile to the United States, which would, of course, jeopardize our supply if something untoward should happen to these governments. Have we not had - do we not continue to have - for this reason, the debate about using our own resources for oil and gas?

The National Academy of Science report (summary downloadable as a .pdf here, full report available here) is one of the reviews to which Bolling referred. The report is quite dense, and neither I nor Mr. Bolling are qualified scientists on this subject, so let's see what one of the panel's members has to say in summary.

Dr. Corby G. Anderson was a member of the NAS panel which wrote the report, and his op/ed in the Richmond Times-Dispatch on 09 September has this to say:

Virginia legislators and residents should keep in mind that much of the NAS report focused on the impacts of uranium-mining practices dating back to the 1950s, '60s and '70s, long before any of today's strict regulations were put in place or modern industry practices were adopted.

Fifty years ago, we had neither the technology nor the understanding about the effects of radiation to mine uranium safely. That is not the case today. The NAS report affirms that and provides a "starting point" for Virginia by identifying internationally accepted best practices and regulatory standards for uranium mining.

Uranium is mined safely with minimal environmental impacts throughout the world. Studies conducted by leading epidemiologists demonstrate that today's uranium workers and the public living near modern uranium mines are as healthy as the general population.

Consider that about one-fifth of the world's uranium is mined in nearby Canada, largely in Saskatchewan. Since a government study panel concluded in the 1990s that the environmental impacts of uranium mining could be minimized, the Saskatchewan government has fully embraced the industry and still boasts an enviable record of environmental stewardship.

Today the uranium-mining industry there supports thousands of high-paying jobs and is rigorously regulated by the provincial and federal governments. Virginia would be well served to draw upon the Saskatchewan experience. [emph. mine]

Dr. Anderson rightly reminds us in this op/ed that he is speaking as a private citizen, and not as a representative from the NAS panel, but is remarks should be taken seriously. Technology has made tremendous strides since the moratorium on uranium mining, and the NAS report, while carefully examining the problems associated with uranium mining and acknowledging the difficulties associated with it, mainly concludes that is can be done - assuming proper regulation and oversight is in place.

(As an aside, please remember that "ban" is actually incorrect, while "moratorium" is more accurate. The relevant portion of the Virginia code states

§ 45.1-283. Uranium mining permit applications; when accepted; uranium mining deemed to have significant effect on surface.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, permit applications for uranium mining shall not be accepted by any agency of the Commonwealth prior to July 1, 1984, and until a program for permitting uranium mining is established by statute. For the purpose of construing § 45.1-180 (a), uranium mining shall be deemed to have a significant effect on the surface. [emph added]

So there is no "ban," as such; rather, no mining may be done until proper statutes are drawn up for regulating uranium mining.)

I have met with several people at Virginia Uranium; they all seem quite above-board and truly interested in the economic health and future of Pittsylvania County. Now, certainly I can be fooled - we can all be fooled at one time or another - but if these men and women are truly the nefarious reprobates intent on destroying the culture and environment of our county (as the anti-uranium folks are wont to picture them), then why are they all so willing and eager to be subject to the regulations Virginia would have to enact? Why are they so willing to dig in and hold on to their ownership, when it would be far easier to sell out and let one of the big companies shoulder the headaches that crafting, editing, and passing the regulations - and then the whole, nightmareish process of actually getting permitted under those regulations! - entails?

Heck, if it were me, I'd be sitting on a beach somewhere, sipping mai tais rather than attempting to inform people of the FACTS about uranium and slamming my head against the brick wall of people who just don't care about facts!

One of the most common myths I've heard promulgated is that, appaerntly, Virginia has a climate that is wet with lots of rainfall, and is thus utterly unique in all the world, so mining couldn't possibly be done safely here. (Yeah, tell that to the farmers who are currently lacking about 16 inches of rainfall this year...)

Uh-huh. Well, it seems to me that Canadian mines seem to be doing quite well. Rabbit Lake (Cameco) is practically surrounded by water, plus it has to deal with snow and snowmelt far greater than anything we'll ever see (oh, and it's won several safety trophies, too!). Or take a look at AREVA's operations in France (which, by the way, is not at all an arid country). Cleanup and proper shut down of old mines is extremely important in protecting the environment, of course. Note that AREVA is very concerned with complying with regulations set up by the French government!

Oh, did you mean that Virginia has no experience with this "wet climate" mining? How about I refer you back to Dr. Anderson?

The report emphasized the effectiveness of runoff and wastewater collection systems, as well as buffer zones and groundwater monitoring wells surrounding the site to detect the slightest elevations in contaminant levels and prevent contaminated water from escaping the site.

Virginia does not have to reinvent the wheel when it comes to uranium mining and milling. It can draw from the international best practices reported in the NAS study as well as borrow from effective regulatory regimes established in other states and countries.

We do not live in a vacuum, people. We do not live in the 1970's or 80's. We live in 2012 (soon to be 2013), and in an area where we have the chance to help supply America's energy needs. We have a chance to be part of it - and whether we go ahead and use this resource or not, let's make the decision with our brains and not our emotions!

The second report Bolling may have referred to could have been either the Chmura report or the George Mason study (links go to .pdfs). The summary at the beginning of the GM study (pp. 2-5) reviewed the circumstances of Pittsylvania County and also examined the impact of existing mines in communities in Texas, Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. It concluded:

• The fiscal impact analysis of the proposed mine and mill on Pittsylvania County found a substantial net fiscal benefit for the County.
• The regional housing market analysis found that economic and demographic factors have the greatest impact on housing sales and values with recent housing trends showing gains from the 2008-09 recession.
• Spending from the uranium mine and mill construction and operation would also be expected to increase demand for housing in the County.
• The analysis of how uranium operations have affected the economies of other counties have found that uranium has had a positive economic impact on these communities with no effect on business attraction and retention.
• The business climate analysis concluded that recent gains in the housing market and multiple business attraction successes indicate that the proposed mine and mill do not create a stigma that negatively impacts the County's economy.

When looking at other communities and reviewing recent changes in the housing and business sectors, the George Mason report indicates that this would be a definite positive for Pittsylvania. I would suggest you download the report and at least read the four page summary at the beginning.

A look at the Chmura report's summary will quickly demonstrate that, while it appears to have a more cautious view of the possible socioeconomic stigmas many citizens are concerned about, overall the mine will have a positive impact on the county. Of the four scenarios Chumra looks at, only one - the one where current federal standards on uranium mining are not met - has no positive impact at all.

Chmura is also quite blunt about the fact that the local community is very skeptical about whether federal or state regulation would, in fact, be able to keep the mine operating within safe environmental standards. The report puts forth a suggestion

... that several steps could be taken to mitigate some of this skepticism and bolster the public’s confidence in VUI as well as in state and federal regulatory agencies. These steps include the signing of an “Impact-Benefit Agreement” between VUI and Pittsylvania County, the establishment of permanent Environmental Quality Committees, and the utilization of “adaptive management” practices by VUI. [page 10]

You see? Yes, there are problems associated with the uranium mine - there are problems associated with any type of heavy industry like this - but they are not insurmountable. If we step back and look at the facts with our BRAINS, and do not succumb to emotional impulses based on myth and fear, uranium mining could be a positive development for us all.

America has historically been a place where people dare to do great things and reach out to better themselves and their communities. Of course we have failed at times; that's part of life. However, failure is only an opportunity to pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and learn from your mistakes so you can make it succeed the next time you try.

Does uranium mining have the possibility of failure? Of course it does! However, when you step back, look at the facts, and evaluate them carefully with your intellect rather than your fears, I believe that the chances of success far outweigh the chances for failure. 

Learn The Facts About Uranium

via vimeo.com

(with kittipurrs to my blog-brother, Jim Hoeft at Bearing Drift)

Very interesting video, and quite encouraging.

Look, folks, it's not that I'm so pro-uranium that I want it to go forward no matter what - that's madness! What *I* want is a good, solid, scientific study - oh, like the one being done by the National Academy of Sciences - to determine if it can be done safely.

And, by "safely," I mean "within acceptable risk." The anti-uranium hardcases who insist on 100% safety are being hypocritical. If they truly want 100% safe things, they ought to be sure that they don't drive, don't fly, don't swim, don't cross the road, and don't drink water.

Nothing is 100% safe - even water can be harmful if you consume too much!

Now, if the study comes back and says that the risks are unacceptable, then of course I'm going to be against uranium mining! But the activists who are lobbying so fiercely against mining here at Cole's Hill seem to be blind to the advances in science and mining techniques (they appear to give a 1985 study almost biblical authority), and also like to use red herrings like demonizing the Cole family and insisting that a study funded by Virginia Uranium and conducted by the NAS would, ipso facto, be tilted. I think that's a spurious argument - as does the NAS - as the activists have yet to present solid evidence that this would, indeed, be the case.

Hey, I have a dog in this fight: I live within five miles of Cole's Hill! If the science says it's unsafe to mine, then I want absolutely no part in it! But, if it can be done safely, then this venture will bring much needed jobs and revenue into our impoverished and shrinking population, and be beneficial to solve some of America's energy needs.

By the way, you know what I hear most as an argument against mining uranium around here? "Well, Chatham [the county seat] just doesn't want to become a *snobby sniff* mining town!"

Oh, really?

Would Chatham prefer to become a ghost town? We're losing population because we have few job opportunities for our young folk. We have very little to attract new families to the area, other than our rural beauty, and the kindness and decency of our residents (think "salt of the earth," folks - the people are wonderful here!).

Why not look into uranium as one possibility to revive our county? 

To refuse to even consider it, to dismiss any study (which is what the activist would do) of whether it can be done safely, is equal to the madness of going ahead without counting the cost at all!

C'mon, folks, be reasonable: let's see if it can be done properly before we argue about whether we will do it, OK?

UPDATE: Here's a Pittsylvania resident who took the personal responsibility to do her own research. She decided NOT to be swayed by the emotional impact of the word "RADIATION!!!1!!!!OMG!!!!!" and find out facts. Kudos and brava to her!

Well, here's some good news

The Virginia Uranium study is going to be done:

The Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy voted 12-0 for the study. A state House of Delegates committee killed a study proposal in March. But the commission’s chairman, Del. Terry Kilgore, R-Scott, said that panel is probably the best group to oversee a study.

On Tuesday, outside the polls, I saw a couple of people who were taking signatures to stop any sort of study. I wanted to ask them why; after all, if their case is so strong, wouldn't the science and facts confirm that?

If the study shows that uranium mining cannot be done safely, then I will be among the first to step up and tell Virginia Uranium "No. Not here." But, if the study shows that it CAN - and I mean REASONABLY safely; don't ask for a 100% guarantee, because nothing comes with that level of safety - then Pittsylvania needs the jobs and the revenue desperately.

Virginia Uranium is back in the news

... and linked by the Instapundit.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Messrs. Bowen and Coles, who last year formed a company called Virginia Uranium, are asking the state to determine whether mining uranium really is a hazard and, if not, to lift the ban. But they've run into a brick wall of environmental activists who raise the specter of nuclear contamination and who are determined to prevent scientific studies of the issue.

The Piedmont Environmental Council is one of the leading opponents. It warns of the "enormous quantities of radioactive waste" produced by uranium mining.

Jack Dunavant, head of the Southside Concerned Citizens in nearby Halifax County, is another outspoken critic. He paints a picture of environmental apocalypse. "There will be a dead zone within a 30 mile radius of the mine," he says with a courtly drawl. "Nothing will grow. Animals will die. The radiation genetically alters tissue. Animals will not be able to reproduce. We'll see malformed fetuses."

Yet it is not as if we have no experience with uranium mining, which is in fact relatively harmless. Handled properly, the yellowcake that is extracted is no more hazardous than regular household chemicals (and unlike coal, it won't smolder and combust).

James Kelly, who directed the nuclear engineering program at the University of Virginia for many years, says that fears about uranium mining are wildly overblown. "It's an aesthetic nightmare, but otherwise safe in terms of releasing any significant radioactivity or pollution," he told me. "It would be ugly to look at, but from the perspective of any hazard I wouldn't mind if they mined across the street from me."

From what I've seen, Mr. Dunavant and the SCCC are prone to this type of hyperbole and scare-mongering. If he and the SCCC are so convinced that the science will prove that uranium mining will be so harmful, then they should feel quite happy allowing the study on the impact of uranium mining. After all, if the science is in their corner, then their assertions will be validated, won't they?

But they are so wrapped up in their NIMBY attitude that they ignore the great need that America has for domestic sources of all types of energy, and will not even allow the study to be done.

*sigh*

John Cheney, anti-uranium troll...

I completely edited his comment on my Holy Week post, but here's what he wrote:

Questions for the Multi-National and Local Corporations that want to mine Uranium in Pittsylvania County: Why should the CITIZENS of the state of VIRGINIA be required to tell a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION exactly how to mine from our pristine lands the most dangerous commodity ever discovered by mankind? In all other cases of this kind, the developer or industrial corporation tells the State what they intend to do and how they intend to do it, and then asks the state to study it and approve or deny the process. VIRGINIA URANIUM wants to reverse this process!! It wants the state to spend its time studying the process and then tell VUI how to do it!!! Wow, what MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION would not want this process? It's a dream come true for VUI!! Rather, I believe this is the job and definite requirement of the Multi-Nationals and all of Coles’ many local/state/multi-national companies! Do Your Own Job, Walter Coles.............. It's not our Job............It's Yours!!

Johnny-baby, just a couple of pointers...

• read the rules
• keep on topic
• rein in the rhetoric

Really, baby, this sort of idiocy just makes me dig in my heels and want to display the more mulish side of my personality.

And as for the

Why should the CITIZENS of the state of VIRGINIA be required to tell a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION exactly how to mine from our pristine lands the most dangerous commodity ever discovered by mankind?

Hey, little troll, haven't you ever understood civic responsibility? That's why varockstar and I - among others - want the study to proceed: we, as CITIZENS, want all the up-to-date scientific information so that we can make informed decisions and vote accordingly!

In other words, IF the science - the best and most up-to-date science - says, "This is a bad thing" - THEN we-the-citizens can tell a "multi-national" [rolls eyes] corporation to piss off. But if the best and most up-to-date science says, "This can be done safely" - THEN, we-the-citizens tell this company, which is over 70% local-family owned [oooooo, yeah, THAT'S "MULTI-NATIONAL!!! ... Idiot!], just what we want them to do so that we're assured of safe operation and profits/benefits for the county....

Try again, little troll - and on a post dealing with the uranium issue AND with intelligent arguments, and perhaps I won't ban you from spewing stupidity here in my House...

SB525 - the Uranium study bill - tables in the House of Delegates

Yeah, I know, I'm a couple of days late on this; mea culpa - I had guests!

But SB525 was tabled by the House Committee on Rules on Monday, which I find disappointing. It was apparently done by a voice vote, so we don't know which of the committee members voted for and against - that's also disappointing; if something comes up for vote, it ought to be on the record.

Jim Bacon has a post up (wish he'd made it clear where his quote came from - at least, I think he opens with a quote...) and comments:

...it makes sense for Virginia Uranium to do its own research, prepare a mining plan that it believes can extract uranium safely, and present it for consideration. A General Assembly study then could narrow its focus to the specific set of issues raised by the choice of mining methods. [...]

If Virginia Uranium wants to be taken seriously, it needs to put skin in the game by paying geologists and engineers to figure out which mining method would best suit the conditions of Pittsylvania County.

Well, yeah, I can see Jim's point on this, and it's an aspect I hadn't considered. I suppose I got too caught up with the people who were so vehement (and irrational, IMO) in their opposition to ANY sort of study. Of course, another blog-brother of mine, Jerry Fuhrman, considers the issue to be one of willful ignorance:

...we'll not know exactly which delegates were frightened by the notion that the people of Virginia might be exposed to additional knowledge - beyond the impartial and completely balanced study that came out in Jane Fonda's exhaustive work delivered in The Chinda Syndrome - on the subject.

varockstar at Uranium Mining in Virginia is extremely irritated and says

If we don't seize this opportunity to study what may be our economic salvation, then we will be dooming our entire region. This could be the boost we need, folks. This can be a great and wonderful blessing to our area, but we will never know unless we study it.

I feel as if sometimes I am preaching to the choir. The opposition no more wants to hear our side of the story than the man in the moon. They would rather put on their silly hats and parade their outdated half-truths around Richmond. The sad part is, our legislators bought it, and that is truly frightening. I hope those hats are paid for, and I hope you all carpooled to Richmond, because times are only going to get tougher.

Yeah, I hear you! How many times have I heard SCCC folks and their supporters say, "Chatham doesn't want to be a mining town!"? I think I'm going to start replying "I'm sure Chatham would prefer to be a mining town than a ghost town!" After all, a good part of SouthSide has been slowly but steadily losing population, hasn't it?

So, back to the bill: I don't know that "tabled in committee" is in fact the kiss of death for SB525, but maybe Virginia Uranium will now have a clearer vision on what they need to do to get a new, more viable bill drafted.

Good luck, guys...

You want common sense about the uranium issue?

Well then, you ought to make sure that Support An Independent Study is on your RSS feed. Walter Coles, Sr., is listed as one of the authors, and made the initial post, but varockstar (the other listed author) has been doing a great job researching articles, asking good questions, and voicing the benefits Pittsylvania County might reap if the study shows we can mine safely.

I particularly enjoyed Sunday's post, where varockstar took on an editorial from the Danville Register-Bee by Bill Spieden. varockstar says:

First, Speiden contends that the milling site in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania (a place where I spent several summers with my sister’s godmother and her family) “has been stabilized…it contains 161,000 cubic yards of capsulated, potentially dangerous radioactive material that will have to be monitored at taxpayers’ expense in perpetuity.” What Mr. Speiden fails to mention is that this monitoring in “perpetuity” also applies to loosely-regulated landfills. How many batteries and aerosol cans and household chemicals have been dumped in our local landfills? Do the workers have a chance to check every bag of trash that is deposited into these landfills? Of course not, and that is why the quality of the environment around landfills is constantly monitored, and it will also be in “perpetuity,” because that trash will not biodegrade in our lifetime.

Make sure you read the whole thing, and put the blog on your feed reader!

Uranium Study passes Virginia Senate

Well, this is certainly a step in the right direction:

Last week, the study bill cleared the Senate Agriculture, Conservation, and Natural Resources Committee 15-0 and the Senate Rules Committee 16-1 before heading to the Senate floor for a final vote.

The bill now goes to the House of Delegates, where it will be assigned to committee and reviewed. The House also must approve the bill before it becomes law.

Senate Bill 525 would create a Virginia Uranium Mining Commission to study whether "uranium mining and milling in Virginia can be undertaken in a manner that will safeguard the commonwealth's environment, natural and historic resources, agricultural lands, and the health and well-being of its citizens."

I believe that this is a wise decision by the Senate, and I hope the House of Delegates will pass it, too. It is very important that we get all the information we can before deciding whether to open a uranium mine in Pittsylvania County or not.

Most people with whom I have spoken are in favor of the study, and are interested in the possible revenue the county would gain from this industry.

I have heard one person mention that he's concerned with the management aspect of the mine, and would prefer a large, established mining company to buy out Virginia Uranium, Inc. He believes that larger companies haven't made the offer because the mine isn't really feasible economically. I found that to be an interesting take on things, but since I'm not a business mastermind, I hadn't considered that angle, nor do I know whether it has any merit. Perhaps one or more of my readers might care to comment?

At any rate, Sen. Hurt refused his support for this bill until some amendments were made:

Hurt suggested holding public hearings and including representatives from Pittsylvania County and Halifax County on the commission.

The commission was later expanded from 15 to 17 members to include two representatives each from Pittsylvania and Halifax counties.

Hurt also asked that the commission be required to contract with the National Academy of Sciences or some other "independent entity" for the study.

Hurt, who voted for the bill, said he couldn't have supported the study without the changes.

"I am in agreement with my constituents and feel strongly that citizen input be a centerpiece of this study process," he said.

"I also believe that this study must be conducted by an organization that is universally accepted as an independent and objective authority in matters of science and economics. I would not have been able to support this bill without these critical amendments."

After the session, Wagner said he appreciated Hurt's input on the legislation.

"He made it clear to me that his support of this measure was dependent upon the input of the public and upon the independence of the study," Wagner said.

I believe this to be a very wise and reasoned action on Sen. Hurt's part. The changes make assure local residents that their concerns and interests on this issue will be voiced and considered, and emphasize that the study will be conducted in an unbiased and careful manner.

Virginia Uranuim, Inc., has offered to fund the study, but in all correspondence with me has maintained their insistence that the study be conducted in this equitable manner. Walter Coles, Jr., and the staff I spoke with were quite clear that they wanted an organization which would be neutral and dispassionate, and would have no follow-on interests with VUI whatsoever; I am glad to see that the bill was amended to reflect this concern. And, I am glad that Virginia taxpayers may not have to pay for it! ;-)

UPDATE: Here's the page for SB525 over at Richmond Sunlight (interesting comments going on - and RS is an excellent source for legislative information), and here's the page for the bill at the Virginia State Government site.

Southside Concerned Citizens: Appeal to Misleading Authority

Last week, the Southside Concerned Citizens posted an entry on their blog quoting (in its entirety - not very good etiquette)  a Virginia Beach blogger, Eileen Levandoski. Ms. Levandoski - who I've met, very briefly - blogs at VBDems, and had this to say about uranium mining:

Don’t allow Virginia to become a testing ground for a dangerous new experiment in uranium mining! Email/call your Senator especially if he/she serves on the Senate Agricultural, Conservation and Natural Resources Committee who will consider this bill on Monday, Jan. 28th, bright and early at 9:00 AM.

Do please read the whole thing, because she posts no hard facts and evidence to back up her opinion that uranium mining shouldn't be allowed in Virginia. Now, as a blogger and as well as fairly opinionated person, I am all for people expressing their views on issues; it's part of our political system and one of our Constitutional rights.

However, this echo of the talking points made by the anti-uranium folks is hardly productive. Ms. Levandoski quotes from a "commenter at the Daily Press,"(on this article) and refers her readers to a Mr. Rick Kennerly of the Tidewater Climate Action Network.

Wonderful. Lovely! It's great to know people are getting involved... But what are their credentials? What background/education/research and so on do these people have which would lead the average citizen to give weight to these opinions? What studies do they quote? (none) What authoritative scientists to they cite? (none).

Here is part of the definition of this logical fallacy:

The "authority" cited is not an expert on the issue, that is, the person who supplies the opinion is not an expert at all, or is one, but in an unrelated area. The now-classic example is the old television commercial which began: "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV...." The actor then proceeded to recommend a brand of medicine.

While I certainly appreciate everyone's right to their own opinion, if you want to persuade me, I would like some hard, cold facts. What I see of the facts is that the anti-uranium faction is against even a study to discover and consider the most recent scientific fact and resources on the topic of uranium mining! This has me... confuzzled... to say the least.

I do not understand why so many people are so adamantly against finding out the facts, presenting them in a logical and dispassionate manner, and then permitting informed citizens to review the information and make an intelligent, well-briefed choice.

Just yesterday, Jim Bacon - another blogger, and not an authority, either - expressed his opinion and brought up an excellent question:

I don't profess any expertise whatsoever on the environmental impact of uranium mining. Foes contend that uranium mining produces large tailings piles of water-soluble, radioactive waste. Not something you want leaching into the water table. On the other hand, there may well have been significant advances in engineering and technology that allow the uranium to be processed safely. How do we know unless we get someone to study the question?

The few people with whom I have discussed the issue have expressed a deep distrust of the whole process of the study, believing that there are no possible credible and unbiased sources to conduct it.

I can understand that; I don't trust most people in positions of power, and none completely. We are, after all, imperfect and have our own agendas.

It seems to me, however, that the current debate shouldn't focus on whether or not to mine, but rather on who will conduct and oversee the study, and how it will be carried out. As Mr. Bacon states in the comments:

The big issue in my mind is not whether we should study the practicality of uranium mining -- obviously, I think we should -- but ensuring that the commission has sufficient diversity of viewpoints, sufficient expertise and sufficient transparency to have any credibility once the study is complete. It is imperative to assemble a commission that will have credibility among all parties, or the exercise isn't worth conducting at all.

Why can't the whole argument focus on that? Because if the information and science proves - even under hostile scrutiny - that the Coles uranium deposit can be mined safely and profitably (yes, the order of those two is deliberate), then Pittsylvania County would have a desperately needed source of jobs and revenue.

As I keep saying, let's get the FACTS before we make our decisions. Isn't that what rational, intelligent voters ought do?

Video will be up "shortly"

(UPDATE: For all of my posts pertaining to the Pittsylvania Uranium debate, please click here. Also, if you've looked at the posts after this one, you'll realize I've been having some rather serious computer trouble, and therefore difficulty getting the video up... I'll keep trying, honestly!)

Yes, I did in fact have to swipe the Darling Munchkin's laptop to get this going (that's all right - she's at school and not using it anyway). The last of three videos is going through the conversion now, and I think I'll upload all three to Google Video, since the last one breaks YouTube's 10 minute non-director account limit. Of course, Lord only knows how long they'll take to upload and be "approved," but as soon as they are, I'll post them here.

On a far more positive note, the Beloved Husband, compu-guru extraordinaire, will be home in a few hours. Now, I promise I won't present my sick laptop to him to fix right when he walks in the door... But it won't be too terribly long after, LOL! I would very much like a properly behaved computer humming happily in front of me, and I'm sure that it's the WinXP operating system which is giving poor ViToo (the name I just decided to give her - which makes my old Vaio "ViOne," I guess) major indigestion, and not the other way around.

So, stand by, the video *IS* coming!

I also have the original Marline report on the uranium deposit at Coles' Hill

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

... but since all the sections (inn total) are over 35MB, I'm going to simply offer to send them via YouSendIt to anyone who asks - at least until I get the alternate storage! ;-)

Documents on uranium mining and uranium-related issues

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

I have listed here - all in .pdf format - several documents which will be of interest to those who are investigating the benefits and drawbacks of mining in Pittsylvania County. At the moment, I have not read any of them; I am simply posting them so that concerned citizens may download and examine them.

FULL DISCLOSURE: All .pdf files were provided to me by Virginia Uranium, Inc. Actual links to websites are my own.

I hope that TypePad will accept and hold all of these files, but I don't know how full my disk space is. I am looking around for somewhere I can upload these files for permanent storage, so I can then make sure I have a static and durable place to link to. I have a friend who lives in Louisiana with a business in this general arena, so it may be that he'll be able to host these files along with any others (like video!). If any of my readers have other suggestions, please either e-mail them to me or leave them in the comments - thank you!

I invite all interested parties to download these Adobe Reader files (get it free here), print them out (make sure you have LOTS of paper in your printer!), and discuss them. Just for clarity's sake, please make sure you give full reference information (e.g., document title, page number, paragraph, etc.) in the discussion so that anyone can go to the section you're talking about.

From the Environmental Protection Agency:

• Study on Uranium Mining, Vol 1: Mining and Reclamation Background (.pdf)
• Study on Uranium Mining, Vol 2: Investigation of Potential Health, Geographic, and Environmental Issues of Abandoned Uranium Mines) (.pdf)
• Technical Resource Document: EXTRACTION AND BENEFICIATION OF ORES AND MINERALS, VOLUME 5: Uranium - Mining Waste (.pdf)

A search on "uranium" at the EPA's website brings up over 6,000 articles which mention uranium in some way. Not all of them may be pertinent to the discussion here in Pittsylvania County. ;-)

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a Guide to Nuclear Energy (.pdf)

Virginia Coal and Energy Commission, 1985 - Report to the Governor and the General Assembly of Virginia, Senate Document No. 15 (.pdf)

Uranium Task Force Report, 1984 (.pdf)

SENES Consultants (webpage), ASSESSMENT OF RISK FROM URANIUM MINING IN VIRGINIA, prepared for the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission, 1984 (.pdf)

Response of Marline and Union Carbide to Elizabeth Haskell, member of the Uranium Administrative Group, dated May, 1983 (.pdf) (not certain what it's a response to, but perhaps it's addressed that way because Ms Haskell was the chairwoman of the group?)

Origin of Uranium Mineralization at Coles Hill Virginia (USA) and its Natural Attenuation within an Oxidizing Rock-Soil-Ground Water System, a dissertation by James L. Jerden Jr., of Virginia Tech (website), September, 2001 (.pdf)

Applied Geochemistry (website), Phosphate based immobilization of uranium in an oxidizing bedrock aquifer  (.pdf), an article by James L. Jerden Jr.and A.K. Sinha, of Virginia Tech (website)

Continuing the uranium debate

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

I was contacted yesterday (in the comments on my Virginia Uranium post) by Gregg Vickrey, who is associated with Southside Concerned Citizens - Chatham, requesting me to contact him to set up another interview. It may be as early as Friday, or it may not be until the week of February 4th (next week is a bit busy for me, guys!).

I have advised both Virginia Uranium and Mr. Vickrey that all e-mails from now on on this subject will be considered by me to be available to publish and discuss. I want to be open and transparent with my readers both in my communications and in my biases, and I feel this will help keep us all honest.

Secondly, I have proposed to SCCC and VUI that we set up some meetings which I will videotape and publish. I think it would be good to get both sides together in a small group and discuss the issues, one by one, scientist to scientist, person to person, without all the trappings of political maneuvering.

My main concern, whatever decision *I* make on this issue, is to do my best to make sure each "side" is given their chance to speak and make their case. I think it would serve our community well if as much information as possible is available for them to review and consider as they make their decisions.

I have requested and will continue to request information and documentation from all parties that I can post for public review. Although I will give my personal impressions of the people I meet and interview and of their arguments and evidence, I will neither stoop to ad hominem attacks, nor will I tolerate them from either side.

Evidence, people. Data. Links. Hard, cold facts.

The truth will always take care of itself, in the long run. So let's get the discussion going, let's keep it open, public, and civil, and we will all benefit!

UPDATE: Walter Coles, Jr., has just e-mailed me and said "Kat, we want the truth/facts/science to prevail.  Therefore we will gladly participate in whatever format that you have in mind."

Let's get this puppy rolling! ;-)

Technorati Tags: Virginia Uranium, Southside Concerned Citizens, uranium mining, mining, energy

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.

Upcoming interview with Walter Coles Jr., of Virginia Uranium, Inc.!

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

Well, what a rush!

Just moments ago I got a note in my inbox from Walter Coles, Jr., inviting me over for a tour and an interview! So, on Tuesday morning, I'll pack up my little camera and my digital voice recorder, and head off to meet him and learn more about the process.

Mr. Coles, Jr., is the executive vice president of Virginia Uranium, Inc., and his family - along with the Bowen family - owns the majority of VA Uranium. I am honored that he contacted me via my little blog, and I will be delighted to pose any questions from my readers about safety, environmental issues, permitting, traffic, security, and so on. Mr. Coles is very gracious to extend this invitation to me, and I would request that any questions you offer would be phrased in the same manner of courtesy and in the interest of finding the best plan for our entire community.

I do not have an agenda either way - if uranium mining can be done safely, securely, and kindly to the environment, as well as providing jobs and revenue to our community, then I'm all for it. If it cannot, then I couldn't possibly support it, of course. This is an information-gathering tour, and if a local group opposing this development wishes a similar meeting, I'd be happy to post that interview as well.

In the interest of fairness and honesty, I will be posting the FULL sound files from ANY conversations and interviews I have on this topic (assuming I have enough batteries!), as well as pictures and commentary.

Pittsylvania County in hot debate over uranium mining

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

Well, my post back in October about the possibility of uranium mining coming to Pittsylvania County has garnered more than a few hits off of search engines, as well as a couple of e-mails (and I appreciate the rational and courteous discussion!), so I thought I'd review and expand a little bit.

First of all, what I've been hearing on the street, so to speak, is that many people in the county are adamantly against mining uranium, which is certainly something I can understand. Obviously, there are very important health and environmental issues which need to be addressed: has the technology for mining improved so that the ore can be mined and processed safely? What are acceptable levels of risk (sorry, folks, but you will never get zero risk - just ain't gonna happen)? What precautions will be made to protect the water supply and how effective are they? What impact will mining have on the local environment and where will it be concentrated?

Those are just a few of the many worthy and intelligent questions concerned citizens need to ask and which need to be answered fully and carefully.

There's another murmur that I'm hearing (and again, this is HEARSAY, so I'm not saying it as fact) is that Gov. Kaine is really pushing this through. Now, he's only got two more years left in office as of this writing, so I don't know that he can in fact push it through that quickly. However, just recently the Chatham Star-Tribune published a story on January 3, 2008, about some permits being denied to Virginia Uranium, Inc.:

The Pittsylvania County Planning Commission voted 4-3 Thursday night to recommend that a special-use permit for Virginia Uranium Inc. be denied.

Virginia Uranium began exploratory drilling northeast of Chatham in December to confirm what is believed to be the largest uranium deposit in the United States.

The company is seeking permission for a temporary office trailer and storage for new core samples. [note: the Star-Trib.'s archives can be a little odd, so I'm not certain if that link will always be valid]

However, just about a week later, the permits have now been approved:

The Pittsylvania County Board of Zoning Appeals rejected a recommendation from the Planning Commission Tuesday night and voted 4-2 to approve a special-use permit for Virginia Uranium Inc.

Virginia Uranium began exploratory drilling in December to confirm what is believed to be the largest uranium deposit in the United States. [ditto]

So, although this is the Board of Zoning Appeals overriding the Planning Commission, it's still a fairly confusing situation! Plus, I've also heard that the Commonwealth granted some permits (.pdf file) to Virginia Uranium, Inc., for some exploratory drilling, and I would have thought that was the federal government's jurisdiction...?

There's also the fact that our area's new State Senator, Robert Hurt, is associated with Virginia Uranium, Inc., due to the fact that his father is a part owner in the company. Now, yeah, I may be a bit credulous, but I don't automatically assume improper bias just because of that, but Sen. Hurt - as I'm sure he's aware - will have to walk a very careful line to assure that he is fair and honestly weighs the benefits and costs of this venture. He will have a difficult job serving the needs and desires of his constituents, and I'm sure that no matter which way he goes, he'll be castigated by the other side. The other side of that, for me, is that if Gov. Kaine does indeed want to push this through, my knee-jerk response (since I'm very conservative, and he's not) is to say "Heck, NO!" ;-) I hope, however, that I can do the research and get more information so I can make a well-reasoned and considered choice...

So, at this point, I guess I'm still pretty neutral. I'd like more information about advances in safety and mining techniques, and I definitely don't want to go forward without great confidence that this endeavor will have minimal impact on my neighbors' health and the environment. There are many issues which MUST be addressed and resolved before I can properly offer either my support OR opposition. Certainly Pittsylvania needs the development and the income, but not at the expense of our citizens' well-being.

Hm. Perhaps I'll have to drive down Cole's Rd. and take some pictures... I'd like to see more of what's going on with my own eyes.

As a side note, a place which OUGHT to be a source for information on what's going on, the Pittsylvania Board of Supervisors, hasn't updated its Agenda/Minutes page since May, 2007 - I need to drop them a line and request the information!

BTW, for reference, here is a link which ought to search the Star-Trib.'s archives for "uranium" (who knows what you'll get; their search and archive section is dismal), and here's a Google search for "uranium mining Virginia Pittsylvania"

Will Uranium mining come to Pittsylvania County?

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

Interesting article in my local paper, the Chatham Star Tribune, about the possibility of opening up a uranium mine nearby (I'm talking within a 5 mile radius!). I think, from what I read in the article, that it would be a good idea. Lord knows that Pittsylvania County desperately needs the jobs and revenue this could generate...

Virginia Uranium hopes to convince the General Assembly to adopt a study resolution on uranium mining and milling early next year.

If, after studying the issue, the state determines uranium can be mined safely, Coles hopes Virginia will lift its moratorium on uranium mining, possibly as early as 2009.
It would still take about two years to develop the legal and regulatory framework for uranium mining, he said.

I particularly like the way the owners of the company are very local-minded, and are going to keep this as a very Virginia company:

"It's a Virginia company - Virginia owned and Virginia managed," said Coles.

The challenge then became to find Virginians who had the expertise the company needed, he said.

Coles approached Norm Reynolds, who left Marline in 1986 but remained in Chatham, where he started North American Locating, an underground utilities company. Reynolds sold the company in 2004.

Reynolds was impressed with Coles' Virginia-owned and Virginia-managed philosophy.
"It's a fabulous idea because here is a local company with local individuals who have passion and stewardship of the land and environment," said Reynolds.

Walter Coles, who is Virginia Uranium's chairman, is from a family which has been a part of this community since 1785. He has served his country in the military as well as in the State Department. Most recently, he served as a security consultant and was in Afghanistan for his last trip before retiring in 2004.

Coles' statements to the Star-Tribune make it very clear that he is committed to making this a profitable venture, but also display his determination to make is safe as well:

Coles has already placed his family's historic home and the land surrounding it in a protected area.

"The land and house are protected from any sort of development by outsiders for 100 years," he said. "I expect to live here through my lifetime, and my heirs to live here as well."

In addition, Virginia Uranium plans to establish legal agreements to protect the environment and reclaim the land.

"We're going to have financial resources set aside so that if anything happens, the land and people will be protected first," said Coles.

"I personally insisted on that because I want my heirs to live here and love the land as I do. So this operation has to meet my very high standards."

However, the Southern Environmental Law Center, "Champions for Conservation," is opposing the development:

Coles has been meeting with local and state officials as well as environmental groups like the Southern Environmental Law Center in Charlottesville and Piedmont Environmental Council in Warrenton. Both were bitterly opposed to uranium mining 25 years ago.

"We brought it to them and told them what we were going to do," said Coles. "We made it as transparent as possible. The reception has been cordial. They are willing to debate and talk about the issues."

In a statement posted on its website last month, however, the Southern Environmental Law Center promised to be an advocate for ensuring that Virginia keeps the ban on uranium mining.

"Uranium mining in the U.S. and around the world has resulted in a host of serious, long-term problems, including toxic and radioactive contamination of groundwater and surface water, and risk of cancer and other health problems for workers and the public," the law center said.

"Virginia should keep the ban on uranium mining. Too many questions remain about whether the natural resources and public health of the commonwealth can be fully and forever protected."

Well, the SELC is also trying to shut down coal development in Wise County, which isn't a good move at least at first glance: Wise County depends on the revenue from coal - just ask my blog-brother, Kilo! Therefore, for this reason and others, I'm wondering if the SELC is trying to protect the environment at the expense of the residents' welfare.

I am not certain what deficiencies there were in safety precautions 25 years ago, but I'm sure that medical and technological advancements since then are impressive enough that this project should be carefully evaluated. As I said at the beginning, Pittsylvania County is in desperate need of the jobs and the revenue. Mr. Coles is putting his family property on the line, and - sure! - he and Virginia Uranium owners have a lot to gain... But they seem to want to go forward in a manner which will benefit the community and maintain proper safety precautions.

While the SELC certainly ought to raise appropriate cautions, they should also not stand in the way if the risk factor can be managed properly. Remember, the risk cannot be lowered to zero, and that's an unrealistic goal as well as a recipe for stagnation. From the company's statements in this article, I think we should all approach this opportunity with cautious optimism, in hope of bringing more prosperity to Pittsylvania County.

For more reading - and I've only glanced at the Google results - here's the Google search for "virginia uranium pittsylvania" and the Google News results for the same search words. Please let me know in the comments if you find any more specific information!

I do notice that our Delegate, Robert Hurt (who is running for State Senate this year), has not yet made a decision, pro or con.

Technorati Tags: uranium, Virginia Uranium, Southern Environmental Law Center, Pittsylvania County, mining, development