(Note: Copies of this summary of a lecture held recently in Danville and in Chatham are being distributed and if you haven't seen a copy, we are posting the one we received. The health studies at the very end should warrant concern, even among those who support lifting the moratorium in Virginia on uranium mining and milling.)
A SUMMARY of a LECTURE about
Exposure to and Health Effects of Uranium Mining
Presented by Doug Brugge, PhD, MS
Associate Professor, Tufts University School of Medicine
Conclusion -- More public health research about community exposure to uranium mines and mills is needed as newer studies are adding new concerns rather than alleviating them.
Uranium mining has left a devastating legacy in the American Southwest, including among the Navajo people:
* A federal compensation program has paid over 6,000 former miners and their survivors for the illness and deaths caused by mining.
* Billions of dollars, most of it from the taxpayers, has been spent to decommission uranium mills, resulting in disposal cells that must be monitored forever.
* Many abandoned mines are still uncontrolled hazards. In 2007, the Navajo Nation asked the US Congress for $500 million to address the mines on their land.
Known health effects of uranium ore. Note that uranium decays into a series of radioactive elements, including thorium, radium and radon and, also that uranium ore contains other heavy metal contaminants:
Radon is well studied and causes lung cancer. Smoking combined with radon synergistically increases risk.
Uranium causes damage to the kidneys in humans and has been shown to cause birth defects in animals.
Radium causes bone cancer, cancer of the nasal sinuses and mastoid air cells (in the nose)and leukemia.
Arsenic causes lung and skin cancer, as well as neurotoxicity, hyper-pigmentation and hyperkeratosis of the skin.
Recent studies include:
* deLemos at al., (in preparation) -- preliminary results show increased risk of kidney disease with environmental exposures such as proximity to certain mining features (e.g. mine shafts).
* Raymond-Whish et al., 2007 in Environmental Health Perspectives — showed that uranium has estrogenic properties in cultured animal cells.
* Stearns et al., 2005 in Mutation Research — discovered that uranium damages DNA as a heavy metal, independent of its radioactive properties.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Kudos to Virginia Beach for taking precautions to protect its water
(Without seeing the resolution, I would ask Mr. Coles of Virginia Uranium Inc. to please inform us all as to what he considers 'factual errors and alarmist rhetoric' as I'm sure Virginia Beach officials would like to know as well. If the state's coal and energy commission ultimately attempts to lift the moratorium on uranium mining, what we've heard is this proposed operation would likely include a rather significantly sized open pit mine with nearby creeks that flow into the Banister River, which flow into the Dan River and so forth. Beach officials have every right to be concerned & take precautions.)
The Virginian-Pilot© December 3, 2008
VIRGINIA BEACH
The City Council took a stand against uranium mining Tuesday night, adopting a resolution opposing a mine proposed for south central Virginia.
City officials fear uranium mining in Pittsylvania County - about 200 miles away - could contaminate Lake Gaston, the city's water source.
"We can't afford to risk appearing we don't oppose an activity that could ruin this water source," said Vice Mayor Louis Jones.
Uranium is used to power nuclear plants. The Pittsylvania deposit is estimated to be worth between $7 billion and $10 billion.
State Sen. Frank Wagner of Virginia Beach said in a letter to the City Council on Tuesday that the resolution was premature, suggesting the city wait until a study on the impact of uranium mining is done.
Walter Coles Sr., chairman of Virginia Uranium Inc., which is proposing the mine, said the City Council resolution contains "factual errors and alarmist rhetoric."
The Virginian-Pilot© December 3, 2008
VIRGINIA BEACH
The City Council took a stand against uranium mining Tuesday night, adopting a resolution opposing a mine proposed for south central Virginia.
City officials fear uranium mining in Pittsylvania County - about 200 miles away - could contaminate Lake Gaston, the city's water source.
"We can't afford to risk appearing we don't oppose an activity that could ruin this water source," said Vice Mayor Louis Jones.
Uranium is used to power nuclear plants. The Pittsylvania deposit is estimated to be worth between $7 billion and $10 billion.
State Sen. Frank Wagner of Virginia Beach said in a letter to the City Council on Tuesday that the resolution was premature, suggesting the city wait until a study on the impact of uranium mining is done.
Walter Coles Sr., chairman of Virginia Uranium Inc., which is proposing the mine, said the City Council resolution contains "factual errors and alarmist rhetoric."
Monday, October 27, 2008
Expert to speak about uranium's effects on human health on Nov. 8 in Virginia
[ Note: An article published in the Oct. 22 edition of the Chatham Star-Tribune includes information about a free lecture open to the public at 7 p.m. Nov. 8 at the Chatham Community Center, 115 South Main Street, Chatham, Virginia. The lecture comes at an interesting time when the state's Coal & Energy Commission is expected to consider taking on a study prompted by a proposal by Virginia Uranium Inc. re: uranium mining in Pittsylvania County; The state has a moratorium on uranium mining, which some groups are urging the state to keep in place.]
Question-and-answer session to follow talk
DANVILLE - The Dan River Basin Association will sponsor a free educational program on the health effects of uranium mining Saturday, Nov. 8.
Douglas M. Brugge is scheduled to speak in Danville and Chatham about studies, including his own, on the effects of uranium mining and milling on human health.
Brugge (pronounced "Briggy") is an associate professor in the Department of Public Health and Family Medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. His credentials include a doctorate in cellular and developmental biology from Harvard University and a master's degree in industrial hygiene from the Harvard School of Public Health.Brugge also testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about uranium issues in 2007.
"Our association is pleased to sponsor presentations by credible experts in science and public health regarding our country's experience with uranium mining," said Katherine K. Mull, executive director of the Dan River Basin Association."We hope this will be responsive to the needs of residents, businesses and public officials who seek solid information and the opportunity to learn from the experiences of others."
Brugge is scheduled to speak during an invitational event for community leaders and officials at the Institute for Advanced Learning and Research in Danville the morning of Nov. 8.
He also plans to speak on Saturday, Nov. 8, at 7 p.m. at Chatham Community Center. The event is open to the public at no charge.
Question-and-answer session to follow talk
DANVILLE - The Dan River Basin Association will sponsor a free educational program on the health effects of uranium mining Saturday, Nov. 8.
Douglas M. Brugge is scheduled to speak in Danville and Chatham about studies, including his own, on the effects of uranium mining and milling on human health.
Brugge (pronounced "Briggy") is an associate professor in the Department of Public Health and Family Medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. His credentials include a doctorate in cellular and developmental biology from Harvard University and a master's degree in industrial hygiene from the Harvard School of Public Health.Brugge also testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about uranium issues in 2007.
"Our association is pleased to sponsor presentations by credible experts in science and public health regarding our country's experience with uranium mining," said Katherine K. Mull, executive director of the Dan River Basin Association."We hope this will be responsive to the needs of residents, businesses and public officials who seek solid information and the opportunity to learn from the experiences of others."
Brugge is scheduled to speak during an invitational event for community leaders and officials at the Institute for Advanced Learning and Research in Danville the morning of Nov. 8.
He also plans to speak on Saturday, Nov. 8, at 7 p.m. at Chatham Community Center. The event is open to the public at no charge.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
A growing sentiment?
(With the economy tanking, this nation can't afford to pursue plans to build nuclear reactors all over the place. Plus, who really wants to live near one? Read on...)
Alternatives to nuclear energy
The Leader-Post
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Duane Bratt writes in his Sept. 15 opinion piece, "It's time to go nuclear," that the question of expanding the nuclear industry in Saskatchewan has moved from "should" to "how." Contrary to Bratt's claim, the desirability of nuclear power plants, increased uranium mining and other radioactive waste-producing activities is far from clear and needs more public debate. Around the world, people are rejecting his dream of nuclear expansion.
On April 24, the government of British Columbia announced a ban on uranium mining in that province. B.C. also rejects nuclear power as an energy option. In 1980, a report by the B.C. Medical Association warning of health risks was instrumental in enacting an earlier seven-year-long moratorium on uranium mining in that province.
The City of Ottawa and 19 other municipalities in Ontario have recently called on their provincial government to place a moratorium on uranium mining. The chief medical health officer in Ottawa advised his council that, "mining in Sharbot Lake could pose a health hazard to Ottawa."
Nova Scotia and the state of Virginia have also recently reaffirmed their respective bans on uranium mining. The Inuit government of Nunatsiavut, a region in Labrador, placed a three-year moratorium on uranium mining in their territory last March.
The Colorado Medical Society's board of directors, representing 6,800 doctors, voted unanimously last year to call for a ban on uranium mining in that state. The doctors want to protect the state drinking water supply from contamination. Their motion noted, "in areas where uranium mining has been performed in the past, there is documented increases in rates of testicular and ovarian cancer, leukemia, childhood bone cancer, miscarriages, infant death, congenital defects, genetic abnormalities and learning disorders in the population living near the mining site."
A 2007 study done for Germany's Federal Office for Radiation Protection analyzed all childhood cancer cases reported from 1980 to 2003. It found that children under five living within five kilometres of any of the 16 German nuclear plants had twice the usual risk of leukemia and a higher-than-average risk of other cancers.
Germany is phasing out its nuclear reactors and instead is rapidly emerging as the world's renewable energy powerhouse.
Quebec has just announced a $5.5-billion wind energy megaproject designed to supply enough electricity to heat and light 320,000 homes.
In Arizona, a massive solar-generating plant is being built that will produce enough electricity to power 70,000 homes.
We could, and should, become a centre of excellence for a sane energy future by harvesting our wind energy, developing the biomass potential of our forests and heating our homes and water with the sun. We must not get sucked into wasting more money or human capital on a dying, expensive, nonrenewable, cancer-causing nuclear industry.
David Weir
Regina
Alternatives to nuclear energy
The Leader-Post
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Duane Bratt writes in his Sept. 15 opinion piece, "It's time to go nuclear," that the question of expanding the nuclear industry in Saskatchewan has moved from "should" to "how." Contrary to Bratt's claim, the desirability of nuclear power plants, increased uranium mining and other radioactive waste-producing activities is far from clear and needs more public debate. Around the world, people are rejecting his dream of nuclear expansion.
On April 24, the government of British Columbia announced a ban on uranium mining in that province. B.C. also rejects nuclear power as an energy option. In 1980, a report by the B.C. Medical Association warning of health risks was instrumental in enacting an earlier seven-year-long moratorium on uranium mining in that province.
The City of Ottawa and 19 other municipalities in Ontario have recently called on their provincial government to place a moratorium on uranium mining. The chief medical health officer in Ottawa advised his council that, "mining in Sharbot Lake could pose a health hazard to Ottawa."
Nova Scotia and the state of Virginia have also recently reaffirmed their respective bans on uranium mining. The Inuit government of Nunatsiavut, a region in Labrador, placed a three-year moratorium on uranium mining in their territory last March.
The Colorado Medical Society's board of directors, representing 6,800 doctors, voted unanimously last year to call for a ban on uranium mining in that state. The doctors want to protect the state drinking water supply from contamination. Their motion noted, "in areas where uranium mining has been performed in the past, there is documented increases in rates of testicular and ovarian cancer, leukemia, childhood bone cancer, miscarriages, infant death, congenital defects, genetic abnormalities and learning disorders in the population living near the mining site."
A 2007 study done for Germany's Federal Office for Radiation Protection analyzed all childhood cancer cases reported from 1980 to 2003. It found that children under five living within five kilometres of any of the 16 German nuclear plants had twice the usual risk of leukemia and a higher-than-average risk of other cancers.
Germany is phasing out its nuclear reactors and instead is rapidly emerging as the world's renewable energy powerhouse.
Quebec has just announced a $5.5-billion wind energy megaproject designed to supply enough electricity to heat and light 320,000 homes.
In Arizona, a massive solar-generating plant is being built that will produce enough electricity to power 70,000 homes.
We could, and should, become a centre of excellence for a sane energy future by harvesting our wind energy, developing the biomass potential of our forests and heating our homes and water with the sun. We must not get sucked into wasting more money or human capital on a dying, expensive, nonrenewable, cancer-causing nuclear industry.
David Weir
Regina
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Kudos to rational, reasonable responses
Note: Some anti-mining folks have been accused of "fear-mongering" and painting pictures of vast destruction, etc., but this has to be one of the most reasonable, intelligent, well-thought-out responses we've read since this issue surfaced publicly last year. For anyone concerned about Virginia Uranium, the moratorium, uranium mining, etc., we encourage you to read this column published in the Richmond Times Dispatch (Richmond, Va.).
It's About Everyone's Well-Being
Saturday, Aug 16, 2008 - 12:30 AM
By KATIE WHITEHEAD
TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST
CHATHAM Virginia Is Sitting on the Nuclear Energy Mother Lode" -- reprinted on the Op/Ed page from The Wall Street Journal -- expressed the poorly informed opinion of Manhattan Institute senior fellow Max Schulz, who promotes nuclear energy and ridicules environmentalists for a living. Schulz's bias was evident from his first sentence. Rather than study the local controversy over proposed uranium mining, Schulz began with the conclusion that South Central Virginia is a "front in the battle over nuclear energy."
From my perspective in Pittsylvania County, the controversy is not over nuclear power. Sure, the pros and cons of nuclear energy inevitably enter our conversations. But the issue is whether to permit uranium mining, milling, and tailings disposal in Pittsylvania and throughout Virginia. The issue is the health and well-being of everyone here and the long-term socio-economic effects on our communities.
People debate the risks. People want to know who will benefit if mining is permitted. We wonder just how radically the character of our towns and rural landscapes will change. We worry about the stigma associated with mining and radioactivity and how it will influence economic development and tourism in our region. Who will come to our area? Who will leave? Who will get rich? Who will get sick 15 or 50 years from now?
FOR SCHULZ to claim that the outcome of the "battle" here will tell us "whether the country is willing to get serious about addressing its energy needs" reduces a multifaceted discussion to one dimension. It also completely overlooks the fact that there is no shortage of uranium from friendly sources. The risks associated with uranium mining in Virginia -- in particular, the very long-term storage of hazardous tailings -- may not be risks worth taking. Our backyard may not be an appropriate place for this industry, whether we want it here or not.
Schulz says, "Only irrational fear prevents mining Virginia's vast uranium deposits," and paints for us a different picture: Virginia Uranium Inc. stopped in head-scratching wonder before "a brick wall of environmental activists who are determined to prevent scientific studies of the issue."
Schulz not only fails to understand the uranium controversy in Virginia, he gets his facts wrong:
(1)The Virginia House of Delegates Rules Committee killed the 2008 study bill by a vote of 10-4. Led by House Speaker William Howell, R-Fredericksburg, and Majority Leader Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, the Rules Committee is hardly "a brick wall of environmental activists."
(2)Critics of the 2008 uranium study bill, including environmental and conservation groups and the majority of the Rules Committee, objected to an industry-framed study designed to fast-track legislation that would end the moratorium, not to unbiased scientific studies of uranium mining.
SCHULZ HIMSELF seems to have no need for scientific studies. "It's not as though we have no experience with uranium mining, which is in fact relatively harmless," he says fearlessly. He adds, "What sense does it make to ban the safest step in the nuclear fuel cycle?" Apparently Schulz is ready to begin blasting. But past mining has not been safe in many areas of the world.
Uranium mining in western states has been devastating, especially for Native Americans.
It is an open question whether current mining methods significantly reduce risks, particularly in an area with Virginia's population density and climate. Strict regulations don't ensure safety. Accidents do happen as a result of lack of enforcement, intentional violation, human error, and acts of God.
Perhaps Schulz can show us mining and tailings sites that provide reviewable evidence relevant to Virginia for his study-free conclusion. Many people throughout Virginia are doing their best to keep their minds open and develop opinions based on evidence. Max Schulz would do well to do the same.
Katie Whitehead, a native of Pittsylvania County, is a member of the Mining Task Force of the Dan River Basin Association, and former information officer for the Uranium Administrative Group, which studied uranium mining for the Virginia General Assembly in the 1980s. Contact her at KWhiteheadOpEd@gmail.com.
It's About Everyone's Well-Being
Saturday, Aug 16, 2008 - 12:30 AM
By KATIE WHITEHEAD
TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST
CHATHAM Virginia Is Sitting on the Nuclear Energy Mother Lode" -- reprinted on the Op/Ed page from The Wall Street Journal -- expressed the poorly informed opinion of Manhattan Institute senior fellow Max Schulz, who promotes nuclear energy and ridicules environmentalists for a living. Schulz's bias was evident from his first sentence. Rather than study the local controversy over proposed uranium mining, Schulz began with the conclusion that South Central Virginia is a "front in the battle over nuclear energy."
From my perspective in Pittsylvania County, the controversy is not over nuclear power. Sure, the pros and cons of nuclear energy inevitably enter our conversations. But the issue is whether to permit uranium mining, milling, and tailings disposal in Pittsylvania and throughout Virginia. The issue is the health and well-being of everyone here and the long-term socio-economic effects on our communities.
People debate the risks. People want to know who will benefit if mining is permitted. We wonder just how radically the character of our towns and rural landscapes will change. We worry about the stigma associated with mining and radioactivity and how it will influence economic development and tourism in our region. Who will come to our area? Who will leave? Who will get rich? Who will get sick 15 or 50 years from now?
FOR SCHULZ to claim that the outcome of the "battle" here will tell us "whether the country is willing to get serious about addressing its energy needs" reduces a multifaceted discussion to one dimension. It also completely overlooks the fact that there is no shortage of uranium from friendly sources. The risks associated with uranium mining in Virginia -- in particular, the very long-term storage of hazardous tailings -- may not be risks worth taking. Our backyard may not be an appropriate place for this industry, whether we want it here or not.
Schulz says, "Only irrational fear prevents mining Virginia's vast uranium deposits," and paints for us a different picture: Virginia Uranium Inc. stopped in head-scratching wonder before "a brick wall of environmental activists who are determined to prevent scientific studies of the issue."
Schulz not only fails to understand the uranium controversy in Virginia, he gets his facts wrong:
(1)The Virginia House of Delegates Rules Committee killed the 2008 study bill by a vote of 10-4. Led by House Speaker William Howell, R-Fredericksburg, and Majority Leader Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, the Rules Committee is hardly "a brick wall of environmental activists."
(2)Critics of the 2008 uranium study bill, including environmental and conservation groups and the majority of the Rules Committee, objected to an industry-framed study designed to fast-track legislation that would end the moratorium, not to unbiased scientific studies of uranium mining.
SCHULZ HIMSELF seems to have no need for scientific studies. "It's not as though we have no experience with uranium mining, which is in fact relatively harmless," he says fearlessly. He adds, "What sense does it make to ban the safest step in the nuclear fuel cycle?" Apparently Schulz is ready to begin blasting. But past mining has not been safe in many areas of the world.
Uranium mining in western states has been devastating, especially for Native Americans.
It is an open question whether current mining methods significantly reduce risks, particularly in an area with Virginia's population density and climate. Strict regulations don't ensure safety. Accidents do happen as a result of lack of enforcement, intentional violation, human error, and acts of God.
Perhaps Schulz can show us mining and tailings sites that provide reviewable evidence relevant to Virginia for his study-free conclusion. Many people throughout Virginia are doing their best to keep their minds open and develop opinions based on evidence. Max Schulz would do well to do the same.
Katie Whitehead, a native of Pittsylvania County, is a member of the Mining Task Force of the Dan River Basin Association, and former information officer for the Uranium Administrative Group, which studied uranium mining for the Virginia General Assembly in the 1980s. Contact her at KWhiteheadOpEd@gmail.com.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Please listen to this radio news report...
from Free Speech Radio News:
For months, the Department of Interior has also been criticized for what many say are destructive policies. Environmentalists have been trying to halt exploratory drilling for uranium near the Grand Canyon. The price for uranium has soared in recent years, and now the Department of Interior wants to open the region up to mining companies.
Please click and listen to the radio news report by Africa Jones:
http://www.fsrn.org/content/department-interior-moving-open-grand-canyon-exploratory-uranium-drilling/3260
For months, the Department of Interior has also been criticized for what many say are destructive policies. Environmentalists have been trying to halt exploratory drilling for uranium near the Grand Canyon. The price for uranium has soared in recent years, and now the Department of Interior wants to open the region up to mining companies.
Please click and listen to the radio news report by Africa Jones:
http://www.fsrn.org/content/department-interior-moving-open-grand-canyon-exploratory-uranium-drilling/3260
Friday, September 5, 2008
Interesting about Areva & uranium mines
Areva Says Uranium Mines May Be Delayed on Price Drop, Costs
By Paul Dobson
Sept. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Areva SA, the world's biggest maker of nuclear reactors, said uranium mining and milling projects may be delayed or canceled after prices slumped and costs rose.
``New mines will be more expensive and difficult to develop,'' Sebastien de Montessus, executive vice president of mining at the French company, said today at a conference in London. ``The cost is so huge it will be difficult for small players to absorb.''
By Paul Dobson
Sept. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Areva SA, the world's biggest maker of nuclear reactors, said uranium mining and milling projects may be delayed or canceled after prices slumped and costs rose.
``New mines will be more expensive and difficult to develop,'' Sebastien de Montessus, executive vice president of mining at the French company, said today at a conference in London. ``The cost is so huge it will be difficult for small players to absorb.''
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
