Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

More Nuke News

—

by

James A. Bacon
in , ,

The state Senate has signed off on a bill to study whether uranium can be safely mined in Pittsylvania County. (You can find coverage by the Lynchburg News & Advance here.) This is a good thing: The Pittsylvania uranium deposits are among the richest in North America. Uranium mining could stimulate a major new industry for Southside Virginia, but uranium mining has the potential to do devastating environmental harm. Rather than stick our heads in the sand, we need to update ourselves on both the latest uranium mining techniques and the evidence for the harm that could result.

Meanwhile, the Senate has sidetracked a companion bill calling for a broader study of the nuclear industry in Virginia. SJ100, submitted by Sen. Ken Cuccinelli, R-Fairfax, would establish a joint subcommittee that would (1) address all aspects of the production of nuclear power, including the mining of uranium; (2) examine the economic development potential of nuclear power; (3) consider whether the General Assembly should take action to support the development of additional nuclear power facilities in the Commonwealth.

What the resolution does not explicitly say, but I would urge upon the Commonwealth: Virginia needs to study the prospect for building upon the presence of Dominion and its nuclear power plants, the Pittsylvania uranium deposits and nuclear services companies in Lynchburg and Newport News. We need to know: Does the potential exist to build a world-class nuclear power cluster — uranium mining, uranium processing, nuclear power plant design, nuclear power plant operation, nuclear power services — here in the Commonwealth?

I don’t pretend to understand the legislative workings of the General Assembly, but it appears that Cuccinelli’s bill has been incorporated into SJR133, sponored by Sen. Donald McEachin, D-Richmond, which would study the disposal of low-level nuclear waste. True, the two bills do contain the words “nuclear,” but otherwise they have virtually no overlap whatsoever. It appears that McEachin bill is getting kicked around from committee to committee, going nowhere fast.

I’m surprised that legislators from Southside and Central Virginia haven’t jumped on the chance to build a major new industry — a very high-paying one, I might add — in their region. Why are they letting Cuccinelli, from Northern Virginia, do the heavy lifting on this?

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    dude,

    does this position have anything to do with funding from PEC?

    any scientist will tell you that uranium mining in Virginia will be a disaster.

  2. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Dude, if “any scientist will say that uranium mining in Virginia will be a disaster,” then that finding should show up in the study and I will accept it.

    I don’t pretend to be an expert in the field, so I don’t know. But I’m not confident either that a lot of people who purport to know all the answers really do. So I’ll defer to a balanced study group of informed citizens who can talk to the people who really, truly are experts.

  3. Former news editor Avatar
    Former news editor

    The research surrounding health effects and risks of uranium mining
    and milling spans the globe – and its fairly current information.

    In “Reviews On Environmental Health” Volume 20, No. 3, 2005,
    readers will find “Exposure Pathways and Health Effects Associated with Chemical and Radiological Toxicity of Natural Uranium: A Review” ; By Doug Brugge, Jamie L. de Lemos and Beth Oldmixon; Department of Public Health and Family Medicine, Tufts University, School of Medicine, Boston, MA 02111, U.S.A.

    An excerpt from the Abstract says: “Further research is needed,
    with particular attention on the impact of uranium on indigenous
    populations, on routes of exposure in communities near uranium sites,
    on the combined exposures present at many uranium sites, on human developmental defects, and on health effects at or below
    established exposure standards.”
    Also in the review: “We should keep in mind that the risks from uranium exposure are still being discovered. … There is more than enough convincing evidence that uranium is hazardous to human health. In our opinion, the most
    stringent exposure standards should be applied as evidence continues to accumulate.”

    Helen Caldicott, MD, in Australia (a former instructor in pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, personally nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Linus Pauling,
    founder of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute headquartered in Washington, DC,and someone with amazing credentials) gladly answered some of my questions :
    When I asked her if uranium miners were any safer in 2008, she told me respiratory masks cannot stop radon gas from being inhaled ; no radiation suit can stop gamma
    radiation except lead!, and all miners swallow some dust which contains radium. The only thing they have improved on is better ventilation in the mines to dissipate the concentration of radon gas but the miners are still at risk for inhalation. She also noted there is “huge medical literature on uranium mining.”
    When talking about nuclear power, she encourages people to remember that mining is just the beginning of the catastrophically dangerous nuclear fuel chain which ends with storing hundreds of thousands of tons of intensely radioactive waste to be isolated from the environment for 500,000 years – an obviously impossible task, she says. She wrote: “Such waste will inevitably pollute rivers, streams, lakes and seas, and the
    radioactive elements will concentrate at each step of the food chain. Tasteless, odorless and invisible they will inevitably contaminate human organs inducing over decades epidemics of cancer, leukemia and genetic disease in hundreds of future generations of plants, animals and human beings. Therefore uranium mining does not stand alone in its dire medical implications, it is the beginning of a cycle with unsolvable and insoluble medical consequences.”

    So when a mining company won’t publicly reveal how its geologists and consultants suggest extracting the ore — instead saying only “we’ll wait for the study” — I think you can imagine why residents whose homes are within mere miles of this proposed facility aren’t cheerleading this to Richmond. A uranium mining and milling operation should NEVER be located within mere miles of homes and larger population centers — and certainly not with Virginia’s history of sometimes severe weather. Would you want to live next door to a large open pit uranium mine on a day when the winds are gusting above 30 mph for most of the day? (Plus, many of the people around there live on private wells…) There are many reasons why residents there are opposing what could indeed be disastrous for the Commonwealth and future generations in Pittsylvania County.

  4. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Former News Editor, It looks like you’ve done your homework, and you raise a number of alarming issues. To be credible, the General Assembly study group would have to address them each head on.

    If, as you suggest, a mining company won’t reveal how it would extract the uranium, and the G.A. study group can’t evaluate it, then the whole exercise is futile and the moratorium should be kept in place.

  5. Former news editor Avatar
    Former news editor

    Precisely. I have sent correspondence to delegates on the rules committee asking if Virginia Uranium Inc. will be required to supply any and all of its data to the Commission appointed to study whether uranium can be mined safely in Virginia if SB 525 passes the House? Is that specific language in the bill? If it’s not, it should be, correct? Without the most current information from Virginia Uranium about its plans, water testing, drill sampling, mapping, methods, technology, etc., how could a fair and just study be conducted effectively? And will that study – and all the documents, interviews, etc. — then become public record and available to everyone? (Or would it fall under the protection of Virginia’s FOIA rules governing uranium exploration? The FOIA rules protecting uranium exploration info can be found on the DMME web site.) This must be addressed for the public.

    These questions above arose while I was reading the conclusion of a report prepared by a county environmental advisory board for the Larimer County Commissioners (dated Feb. 12, 2008). They make a very valid point – Please read the below information.

    “…the board would expect that those proposing the mining operation will provide the public with all of the data which they possess that could have any relevancy to the matter at hand and then use these data to propose a reasoned and scientifically based risk assessment of the operations. Without meeting this standard, it is impossible for the Board or the public to provide their informed consent or for the outcome to represent a just resolution. The risks (environmental, economic, health, and social) and the ability of the mine operator and local governments to avoid or mitigate these risks should be weighed against the benefits that may be derived from such an operation when determining whether the mine is acceptable for the region.”

    SOURCE: Report on In Situ Leach and Open-Pit Mining ; prepared for the Larimer County Commissioners by The Larimer County Environmental Advisory Board; Feb. 12, 2008.

    This points out that a report about uranium mining did not provide a clear “thumbs up or thumbs down” to county commissioners because of the lack of information from the mining company. The report provided facts and documentation about general risks of uranium mining, but not direction. Will such a study from the National Academy of Sciences provide a clear decision or direction, or will it be open for wide interpretation based on current information available to them? And who do you think will be interpreting that study? A state that is looking for a fuel source for its nuclear reactors?

    (The Roanoke Times’ editorial staff also wrote an excellent piece about why a company should not be allowed to fund a state study that will directly affect its own financial future…If you want me to send the link, I’ll be glad to do that. Thx!)

  6. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Former News Editor, I believe in transparency in government — a bedrock principle — especially when it comes to matters affecting the public’s health. Virginia Uranium should be willing to disclose its proposed mining methods in some detail. Why not? It doesn’t have any competitive pressures to worry about.

    If the study group doesn’t focus on the relevant mining technologies and techniques, then the study would seem to be a waste of time.

  7. Former news editor Avatar
    Former news editor

    That’s the big question. At a recent public forum, VUI only showed a PowerPoint on different methods of mining; They didn’t say “here’s what our team suggests we do” OR say they would be open to any possible revisions or additions to their plan based on the study. So, why haven’t they presented a plan? I can’t imagine a group would create a business plan, register Virginia Uranium Ltd. in the Yukon Territory, then VUI in Virginia, etc., etc., without knowing how they would most economically extract billions of dollars worth of radioactive ore out of their property? So how do we make sure lawmakers — and the governor — will require VUI to present all relevant information to the group assigned to study the issue (for inclusion in a public report) so it won’t be a completely futile effort?

  8. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Bottom line: Any lifting of the mining moratorium must be contingent upon the filing of a specific mining plan or methodology. Any significant deviation from that plan would be grounds for maintaining the moratorium. Yeah, I could go with that.

  9. Former news editor Avatar
    Former news editor

    As for Virginia trying to ramp up its presence in the nuclear industry, check out this Web page I found while doing some homework on the issue: http://www.foe.org and scroll down the page until you see “Help us fight new nukes in the U.S.”, then watch the interactive video “Don’t Buy the Big Nuclear Lie!” for even more disturbing stats. Ick. There’s no need to sensationalize — it’s bad enough. Click on the links about security, theft, for more details about the lack of security at nuke facilities even after 9/11. Heck, it makes the proposed legislation about allowing folks to carry permitted concealed weapons in restaurants seem miniscule. :

Leave a Reply

Read More