Uranium discussion heats up in Va.

Advertisement

Text size: small | medium | large

By Rex Bowman

Published: January 7, 2009

Members of a state commission preparing to oversee a study of uranium mining in Pittsylvania County were urged by area residents last night to make sure the study fully addresses the health effects related to mining the nuclear fuel.

Residents also vowed to fight any legislative attempt to use the study to overturn a 27-year-old statewide moratorium on uranium mining.

"This subject is near and dear to our hearts -- it affects our loved ones, our land, our water," said Jack Dunavant, chairman of Southside Concerned Citizens, at Chatham High School before a crowd of about 450, most of whom were opposed to uranium mining. "If Richmond tries to shove this down our throat, we will fight to the bitter end, till the last man falls."

A few others asked members of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy's Uranium Mining Subcommittee to make sure the study takes into account the economic benefits of uranium mining.

Up to $10 billion worth of uranium may lie beneath the Pittsylvania soil -- potentially the nation's largest deposit -- and a group of landowners has formed the mining company Virginia Uranium Inc. in hopes of mining the ore. Proponents say developing the ore into nuclear fuel will help break the nation's dependence on oil.

But many residents fear that mining the area's rich uranium deposit could contaminate the water. They also worry that wind will blow debris from a mining operation and contaminate the air and damage crops.

Environmental and health concerns prompted Virginia to impose a moratorium on uranium mining in 1982. But the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy opened the door to removing the moratorium when it agreed last year to study the issue.

The Uranium Mining Subcommittee hopes to enlist the help of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct the study, which could take 18 months to two years to complete. The subcommittee called last night's public hearing in Chatham to gather residents' advice on what should be considered in the study.

Walter Coles Jr., whose father owns a controlling interest in Virginia Uranium, told committee members the study should be thorough but should not be used to close the door on mining uranium.

"What are the risks if this project is not allowed to go forward? We're dependent on foreigners for 90 percent of our uranium requirements," Coles said.

Others suggested the study look at the impact of a uranium mine on property values, economic development, and agriculture.

"In the event that there is seepage into the groundwater, how is it going to be cleaned up?" asked Terry Andrews of Halifax County, who said she lives 15 miles downstream from the proposed mine site. "How are we going to get the water back to the way it was?"

Pittsylvania resident Andrew Lester suggested that the committee listen to the advice of mining opponents to help them make the right decision: "If it's the wrong one, you'll be damned by history, and you don't want that."

Contact Rex Bowman at (540) 344-3612 or .

Reader Reactions

Posted by ( zerro ) on January 07, 2009 at 6:27 pm

,,lets see,,if we look at our national history we will find that it dosent matter what we the masses ever want,,its what the billionars want,,thus you loose ,,you get to die and 50 yrs later the gov gets to declare you a diaster area and super fund tax dollars clean u up ,,but only after half of you have died from 3-mile island and that new jersey cess pool of chemical dumps,,,,whatever ,,etc etc,,we are PHAROAH childrens,,only here to build his paramid and die ,,doing it ,,and never see our moses !!,,so frig you southwest va..the stats are in,,and you are expendable,,and so are your kids,,have a nice day ,!!

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( celtwom2591 ) on January 07, 2009 at 3:44 pm

Thank you all for your informative and interesting responses to this issue.  Education does help to dispel fear.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( Ed Ablard ) on January 07, 2009 at 3:15 pm

Since I didn’t attend the hearing I don’t know what was advanced and not picked up by the RT reporter, however, I point to a study by ACEEE issued 9/2008 which laid out our choices of energy in Virginia. First and least expensive was conservation of energy. Near the middle of the graph on the first page of the report are “thin film photovoltaics” (dark green bar)and nuclear energy (royal blue bar). http://aceee.org/pubs/e085.htm 

Assuming the values on the graph are verifiable, it appears to me that we need all energy sources if they are all equally safe to the left of the nuclear blue bar, energy efficiency, wind, biomass, natural gas cobined cycle, Pulverized coal, Thin Film Photovoltaics and perhaps nuclear in some rank order which will not destroy the livability of the planet.

For now my interest is in “thin film photovoltaics” mostly because it appears marginally cheaper than nuclear and not likely to contribute to Virginia’s carbon footprint. One vendor of this product is Uni-Solar. I own some of the stock of its parent (ENER) Energy Conversion Devices, Auburn, Michigan. It seems more deployable than wind. Biomass has its own benefits but it is not seen I think as a viable electricity producer but rather as an oil substitute.

I hope the commission will do a thorough analysis of the available, less expensive choices to the left of the nuclear blue bar before it adopts a plan to advance nuclear mining. Support a renewable power portfolio requirement for the Virginia electric and gas utilities this year. Recognize the effeciency potential of super-cooled underground power lines which are now completing testing in Ohio and New York State.

The economic crisis provides an opportunity to bring forward the newest and best thinking and technology for the future leaving behind not only some bad housing, building and auto designs but the energy solutions of the 1920’s.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( wcasino ) on January 07, 2009 at 2:48 pm

It is unfortunate that people tend to react in a knee jerk manner to things they do not fully understand. The default reaction to anything new is usually “NO” untill someone goes through an incredible educational effort to change minds to yes. With adequate regulatory supervision, public communication, transparency in operations, and insurance, the 21st century mining industry should be able to conduct business in a manner that does not risk damaging the surrounding environment. We can enjoy the benefit of our natural resources without sufferring from unintended consequences.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( Dave ) on January 07, 2009 at 8:47 am

‘seepage into groundwater’—Isn’t the uranium already in the ground? I understand the need to make sure the mining operation doesn’t pollute the environment, but unless folks are prepared to have their grandchildren heating their homes with wood stoves they might want to take advantage of this opportunity.The oil will not last forever. Perhaps folks need to go back and look at what the countryside, and the atmosphere, looked like 100 years ago when forests were being cut and burned as fuel.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Post a Comment

(Requires free registration)

  • Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
  • Respect others.
  • Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" link when necessary.
  • See the Terms and Conditions for details.

Click here to post a comment.


Tags relating to this article:

Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:



Email This Print This AddThis Social Bookmark Button RSS Feed Add to My Yahoo!

Advertisement

Advertisement

Online Features
Blogs
DataCenter
Videos
Weekend
 

Advertisement