Find us on Facebook
Follow us on TwitterProfessor addresses mining impact
CHATHAM — Uranium mining in the Southwest after WWII caused health and environmental ruin among the Navajos, but the impact of mining uranium ore in Southside Virginia remains to be seen, according to a Harvard-educated professor from Tufts University.
Douglas M. Brugge, associate professor in Tufts University Medical School’s Department of Public Health and Family Medicine, spoke to more than 100 people at the Community Center in Chatham on Saturday night. The Dan River Basin Association sponsored the event.
Brugge said he doesn’t know how Virginia Uranium Inc. will mine a deposit at Coles Hill, and he doesn’t know enough about the area’s hydrogeology to determine the effects of mining and milling in Pittsylvania County. The weather and geology are different in the Southwest, where about 6,000 people in Utah who suffered the effects of uranium mining and milling have been compensated under the federal Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990, he said.
Businesses mined uranium in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Utah and left behind a mess, Brugge said.
“Uranium waste, tailings (and) low-grade ore were left exposed and not dealt with in a careful manner,” Brugge said.
Brugge outlined a history of uranium mining in the Southwest and the known health effects of the practice. Just after WWII, the federal government was the sole legal buyer of uranium in the United States, and that generated a mining boom in the Southwest, Brugge said. But up to 25 years after it ended, tailings and abandoned mines can still be found in the backyards of Navajos, with children playing among the waste, Brugge said as he showed photos.
Uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years and goes through a decaying process, changing back-and-forth from uranium to thorium and to radon. Those exposed to uranium are exposed to a number of substances, Brugge said.
“Radon is an exquisitely potent … carcinogen,” he said, adding that it is known to cause lung cancer. However, it’s more hazardous in confined spaces and doesn’t travel in the air for long distances, he said.
Most of the bad health effects of uranium come from heavy-metal toxicity, Brugge said. Preliminary results of research currently performed by one of Brugge’s graduate students show kidney damage and birth defects among people living in proximity to uranium on the Navajo reservation.
It is among mine workers that health consequences of uranium are most strongly proven, he said.
Also, a lab study found that uranium can cause genetic mutations and has estrogenic compounds that can feminize male animals, Brugge said. Effects on humans in that regard are not clear, he said.
“It’s worrisome and definitely worthy of further investigation,” Brugge said.
Other, more solidly known health effects in humans include radium causing bone cancer and leukemia and arsenic resulting in lung and skin cancers, Brugge said.
Henry Hurt, an investor in VUI, attended the presentation and said Brugge’s speech proved points that the company has emphasized.
“The lessons learned have led to advances in tailings management” and tighter regulations, Hurt said. What happened to the Navajos decades ago is an example of how not to mine and mill uranium, Hurt said.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
No David, it was the McCain ticket that was pushing for unfettered drilling and nuclear. Obama has been urging all along for diverse and new energy sources as well as conservation. What good is making comments just to stir things up for no particular reason. This is a very serious matter, which is going to effect all of us and our descendants, and I believe that the people who comment on this issue are genuinely concerned. There is a saying, “never scratch a tiger with a short stick.“
drill here, drill now is not the solution. poisoning ourselves and the environment is not progress. solar, wind, water, and biofuels (not corn, though-food is expensive enough!) offer us cleaner alternatives that will lead to energy independence, especially solar.
In response to footballfan’s comments, any company which proposes to mine and mill uranium on Virginia soil can then put that yellowcake on the world market for the highest bidder. There will be no guarantee that 100 percent of the yellowcake produced in Virginia will even be used for nuclear reactors within the state or within the United States. And if another larger company, such as Cameco, purchases VUI—which arguably could be considered a junior exploration company—what guarantees do you expect to have with regard to Virginia’s energy independence??? In addition, the concerns about mining and milling radioactive ore in a populated area has nothing to do with the prices of gas.
Its funny, people want to get off arab oil but they do not want to mine uranium. They do not want to drill for gas and oil. The choice is do what we can to make our own energy or be a slave to nations that hate us. Maybe the future President will sit down with ahmadinejad or chavez those good old boys I am sure would love to help us out.
Two things struck me:
1.) Why didn’t the reporter ask Mr. Hurt or anyone else speaking on behalf of VUI any serious questions, such as “Are you concerned about any of the recent—and ongoing—health-related studies mentioned during this meeting tonight? And how do you think VUI will assure residents that these scientific public health studies will be given significant weight in any larger study about the feasibility of uranium mining and milling in the Commonwealth of Virginia?“
2.) Also, why is it that the details of what the professor actually was here to talk about on the inside page, but all the things that he obviously was not here to talk about—such as hydrogeology or VUI’s mining plan (?)—were prominently listed on the front page as some kind of omissions from his area of expertise? He came to talk about the latest public health studies which point to some areas of concern, but no one would know unless they read past the first initial page.
If the money lines up properly, there will be no stopping it….
why, davidl, must you continually embarass yourself by making such bratty and childish remarks?
The fight is not over unless we give it up. They are only doing the study now (which is a waste of money, if you ask me). I am afraid that the results of the study will be twisted to favor the mining companies, though. I’d like to see the mines owners and execs move into a uranium mine. Then maybe I will believe it is safe. NOT!
What it all ultimately boils down to is this:
Are you willing to stake your lives and the lives of your children on the word of so-called experts who don’t have to live here or on the word of corporate tycoons who stand to make billions of dollars?
Are you willing to put your safety and health in the hands of government overseers; the same government that couldn’t stop 19 hijackers from killing 3000 Americans on 9/11. The same government that started a war in Iraq on false pretenses? The same government that allowed the financial mis-dealings on Wall Street to create the current malaise? The same government that regularly can’t balance it’s own checkbook?
I’m not willing to do that, but I fear the decision has already been made and we are just being paid lip-service at this point.
It’s all well and good to have these educational meetings with people like Dr. Brugge. Health issues aside, I wonder how people looking to relocate to this area will look at “uranium mining in their backyard”. I doubt if they will do their research to see that it will be “safe” and then decide to move to a mining town. I am glad it will take a few years to get this going. Hopefully the housing market will pick up and we’ll be able to sell and move to a town where I don’t have to worry about industries that have to have proof that they are safe. This decision has not been made out of ignorance of “safe unranium mining”. We are looking at the bigger picture about how this area will be able to draw more homeowners, industry, tourists, etc., and with this mining…I am skeptical.
Advertisement