Find us on Facebook
Follow us on TwitterUranium safety priority leaves doubts
The Uranium Mining Subcommittee’s approval Thursday of the final draft of a study to determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in Virginia drew a variety of reactions from local opponents and a supporter.
“We’re very gratified,” Patrick Wales, geologist and spokesman for Virginia Uranium Inc., said Friday. “An independent study of uranium mining and milling has been the one thing we’ve been proposing since the inception of our company.”
VUI seeks to mine and mill a 119-million-pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham. Virginia currently has a moratorium on uranium mining.
Among changes the subcommittee brought to the final draft of the 11-item statement of task was to move the public health and safety aspect of the study from the No. 7 spot to No. 1. The previous first priority of the study was a review of global and national uranium market trends. The subcommittee also added language that calls for analysis of mining impacts on public health and safety in areas with comparable geologic, hydrologic, climatic characteristics and population density to Pittsylvania County.
A request that study language include methods for tailings management to prevent or mitigate leakage was nixed. However, Delegate Lee Ware, the subcommittee’s chairman, said after the meeting that Michael Karmis, director of Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal and Energy Research, has assured him that tailings will be included in the study. Karmis will take the approved final draft to the National Research Council and the study will begin, Ware said. The study will take about two years.
Wales said that public health and safety has “always been our No. 1 priority.” Wales, who attended the meeting, told the subcommittee he hopes “it will follow scientific evidence where it leads us.” VUI also hopes the study’s results will include recommendations on how mining and milling can be done safely in a manner that protects public health and the environment, Wales told the subcommittee.
“This is our home, our community,” Wales said Friday.
But not everyone was pleased with Thursday’s vote. Mining opponent Karen Maute, who did not attend Thursday’s meeting, said Friday she wasn’t surprised by the decision and that elevating public health and safety to the top of the list makes no difference.
“You’ve got seven rocks in your pocket and you take one out first, it’s still a rock,” Maute said.
Also, there’s no guarantee that the study will provide a clear answer to the question of mining’s safety, Maute said. She questions the credibility of a study that arose from a circumvention of the legislative process. A proposal for a study in the General Assembly, Senate Bill 525, was killed in a House of Delegates subcommittee in early 2008. But the following November, the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission approved the study and tasked the Uranium Mining Subcommittee with overseeing it.
“The whole thing is bogus,” she said.
Although public health and safety now head the list, it’s not enough, said Eloise Nenon, a board member of Southside Concerned Citizens, which opposes uranium mining.
“I’m still concerned that they are ignoring the people,” Nenon said.
Health is an important part, Nenon said, but the study still needs to examine the economic impacts of mining and milling on the community, its effects on agriculture and the people who have lived and farmed here for several generations. In addition, taxpayers will be left with the bill to clean up the site, she said.
Nenon said she was disappointed that the subcommittee didn’t wait 60 days to allow more public comment before making a decision on the study. Delegate Danny Marshall, R-Danville, had asked the subcommittee to post Thursday’s citizen input on its Web site and wait 60 days before deciding whether to approve the study.
“There needs to be more time to allow for more public input,” she said.
Reader Reactions
Oh fly poole, oh fly poole. It’s called punctuation and sentence structure. Let’s try it again. Give me something to work with and I’ll be glad to respond; but, the starting point has got to be that you must at least try (say that with me “try”) to make sense.
ROFL
Hey smarty rockit sorry I did not et back to you fast enough but I see you ignorance is doing fine on uranium since you don’t really know that much about the dangers of it and it’s illegal greed that can come fromit read the world papers and find out that this is on the black market and is a commodity yet since you are so pro drill baby drill why don’tyou take you and your kin folks and move right close to the area we are discussing if you can then most will see it’s okay to drill try it out like yoy say for the next two -three years if so not you are a big idiot also see the earth is hot and has been for a while drilling for a suvbstance thats been around for a long time and becausew money is invovled is know reason for greed how have those people who want the deposits being doing without it plus once a company owns rights it can sell who it wants to shucks a smart person like you might even know how to steal a few pounds at a time you sound like a mad scientist all pressed up for disater waiting to happen/ oh yeah places like North Korea like just trying out new things or let them drill in your front yard
samsacres - Because it is a ridiculous standard to have. There are no guarantees in life or in industry. In the last 50 years, of all the nuclear power plants we have in this country, how many accidents have there been? I’m aware of two real accidents (one outside of Detroit and one at Three Mile Island). Now, there may have been numerous “incidents” which I guess in NRC terms is the definition of minor accident. But, guess what, we still use nuclear power today. With all the built-in safeguards at nuclear power plants we still haven’t been able to prevent, to a 100% standard, accidents and incidents. That is an impossible standard and we shouldn’t pretend that anything like that exists in any industry - certainly not the mining industry.
Perhaps a better question would be to you and others, if we can guarantee 100% safety will you support the mining? Simple question, yes or no?
My gut feeling is your answer would be no. Don’t you see—- having an impossible safety standard is simply a means to an end. It’s a crutch for the anti-mining crowd to lean on because they know there are no guarantees in life. But why let a little thing like truth prevent them from going forward with their scare tactics and doomsday scenarios; especially, if it will support their agenda?
rockit (pw?) why are people wrong in expecting 100% safety when you are talking about uranium mining? why should people in this area expect only an “acceptable risk” when they are in their own homes? talk about boneheaded…why should people only expect an “acceptable risk” for their small children? 500 jobs? highly unlikely…explain why you want this so much..or is that expecting 100% which is boneheaded??
Wow! Well first things first. Sorry to disappoint you Swine (apparently an appropriate name), but I don’t have anything to do with Virginia Uranium. My interest here is simply to offer an opinion from someone who has seen our area miss out on employment opportunities in the past (i.e., Miller Brewing Co., GE, etc.). If there’s employment to be had with this mining operation, then I’m for it. I’m for it if it can be done safely. If you look back thru the archives of this blog, you’ll find that has been my consistent position since I first starting posting about this issue.
There’s a lot of scare tactics going on about safety; yet, when there is a study planned which will take two years to complete, you don’t even want them to do that. The only reason which makes sense is that you are afraid such a study will show that it’s safe to mine this stuff. If that should happen it would really expose the fraud of all those people crying “don’t mine, don’t mine”.
The same kind of thing happened when companies starting irradiating food to kill bacteria. These idiot groups were out there making the laughable claim that if you used radiation to kill bacteria in food, then the food would be too dangerous to consume. It was an outrageous and ridiculous claim to make and it seems, from the evidence so far, that the claims about Coles Hill are just as ridiculous.
But, I’ll play fair. I’m more than willing to wait until all the safety data is in before making a final judgement. What I don’t understand is the mining opponents are not willing to do that. And that is making judgements based on incomplete and probably faulty information. And, who wants to do that when we’re talking about uranium?
In case anyone hasn’t figured it out yet, the reason that “rockit” responds to every comment made about Virginia Uranium is because he works for them. He is none other than “P.W.“ the frequently quoted geologist who is gung-ho to start digging and pocketing some of that sweet blood money.
You can view him and the rest of the gang at VUI by pasting this link into your address bar.
http://www.virginiauranium.com/team.php
Oh and sorry if I let the cat out of the bag P.W. But it was more than a little obvious.
The Virginia Coal & Energy Commission refused to approve language which would have made tailings—the most contaminating part of uranium mining/milling as far as life and environment are concerned—a part of the much touted “Study”.
Also, a site-specific study of risks and impact on the surrounding area of the Coles Hill mining/milling will not be included.
Therefore, “The Study” will provide no information on the safety or risk of uranium mining at Coles Hill, indeed in Virginia.
Those are the reasons I consider “The Study” a joke.
As to an acceptable alternative employer who would provide 500 high-paying jobs in this area, Pittsylvania County and the City of Danville have just spent millions of dollars getting an industrial park ready for a manufacturing facility which is hoped will attract a European automobile company. One did look at our area a year or two ago but sufficient space was not available in an industrial park at that time.
I’m not absolutely certain of this; but, I believe a company has to obtain a permit before creating an industrial mine. Part of that permitting process are various safety reviews and environmental studies. Only after the appropriate state agencies are satisfied that the mining operation will not endanger local communities or violate established environmental guidelines can a permit be issued. I know that is the procedure in some western states like Alaska & Utah. I’m not sure about Virginia. But, just because the moratorium is lifted doesn’t mean that next week, in a dozen different locations, somebody’s gonna start digging. Even if Virginia is not as strict as say Alaska, there are plenty of citizen groups and environmentalists who will undoubtedly lobby for additional laws protecting communities and wildlife.
What kills me is that everyone is so upset about this Study that’s supposed to take place. It’s going to take at least two years to complete that study. That means you’ve got two years to lobby the state legislature to keep the moratorium in place. If the study comes back and says it is safe to mine this deposit; and, you can’t convince (over two years of lobbying) the state legislature to extend the moratorium, then perhaps you are on the wrong side of the issue.
As to that business about operating a mine safely 100% of the time, that’s the wrong standard to apply. The standard should be acceptable risk. NO ONE can ever guarantee 100% safety. When I get on an airliner, I take a calculated risk. Yet, we all know there have been airplane crashes where everyone on board was killed. Thousands and thousands of people die in car crashes every year. Well, guess what - I didn’t walk to Greensboro earlier this week, I drove. Asking for 100% safety 100% of the time is ridiculous, and dare I say, boneheaded. Now some of you will insist that when we’re talking uranium we have to have 100% safety all the time. You are wrong.
My big concern about this which I have rarely if ever seen addressed has to do with how many uranium mines will exist once the moratorium is lifted (which it is almost certain to be).
While I suppose a person could be boneheaded enough to believe that a single uranium mining and milling operation could be operated safely 100% of time from now until forever. However it bears pointing out that the state is rife with uranium deposits and someone other than VUI is going tp want to mine all the available sites. Lifting the ban for the Coles site lifts the ban for everyone.
So as I said, perhaps one could be safely operated, although I doubt it. But the idea that dozens or perhaps hundreds of mines could be safely operated 100% of the time forever without ever having an accident or unforeseen contamination of the surrounding area? That takes a special kind of denial.
(concerned) I get it—- you don’t want mining in any event, under any circumstances even if, perhaps especially if, it can be shown that the mining and milling of this resource can be performed safely. I understand that. It would have been better for all of us if you’d just stated that up front without launching into your attack on the Coles Hill family. I have no objection to you having that opinion, just stop trying to scare the bejesus out of everybody.
(danv) Your point is well taken. Investment in uranium exploration and development is risky economically. That’s a fair point. What I’m saying is, let this study go forward. If it is determined that this particular deposit cannot be mined because the risk to the surrounding community is too great, then so be it. That has nothing to do with whether or not this project would be economically viable. If it can’t be done safely, what difference does it make? That’s the whole purpose of having the study done now instead of waiting until we might need additional uranium. If it can’t be done safely, then we can forget about it and move on to other things. If, on the other hand, it can be done safely, then as the markets become more favorable toward uranium mining, we have that as an option for the future.
(fly poole) I have no clue as to what you’re trying to say; but, thanks for playing.
Advertisement