A uranium threat straight out of central typecasting
By Norman Leahy | Tuesday, November 1st, 2011 | Policy, VirginiaThe NAACP has come out against a proposed uranium mine in Pittslyvania county. The organization is not the first to oppose the mine, nor is it likely the last. However, the reason given for the group’s opposition is straight out of typecasting:
“The risk uranium mining poses to our drinking water, air quality and local communities far outweighs the benefit,” said King Salim Khalifani, executive director Virginia State NAACP. “The magnitude of potential impacts on people of color and all the people in Virginia is too great to leave it to chance.”
Women’s groups and child advocates may have an issue with being left out of the traditional litany of specifically named, most-harmed parties. Look for those press releases soon.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Norm Leahy has written about Virginia and national politics online since 2002, beginning with One Man's Trash (OMT), and continuing through Bacon's Rebellion (both the blog and the e-zine), Sic Semper Tyrannis, NBC12's Decision Virginia, Richmond.com and Tertium Quids. He is the chief blogger at "The Score" and a producer of "The Score" radio show as well as being a Washington Post contributor.
Comments
9 Responses to "A uranium threat straight out of central typecasting"
Uranium mining impacts people of color?
Has the press asked the NAACP what they hell they are talking about?
Are they alleging discrimination by an element?
The potential impact is jobs for a region that sorely needs it. What do they have against jobs?
We need jobs but don’t need dirty water.The promise of creating 400 jobs is nothing more than a complete lie.40 jobs would more likely be a closer number.Virginia Uranium would make millions and leave Southside ruined forever.
These are stupid and uninformed sound bites and inflammatory rhetoric that has everything to do with an agenda that plays on emotion and ignorance and has nothing to do with the facts.
From: http://www.virginiauranium.com/process.php
“Currently, the National Academy of Sciences is studying “the scientific, technical, environmental, human health and safety, and regulatory aspects of uranium mining, milling, and processing as they relate to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the purpose of assisting the Commonwealth to determine whether uranium mining, milling, and processing can be undertaken in a manner that safeguards the environment, natural and historic resources, agricultural lands, and the health and well-being of its citizens.” The results of this study are expected in December of 2011. For more information on the study, visit http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49253 ”
And another study which will directly address “people of color” and everyone else: “In 2010, the Virginia Coal & Energy Commission retained Chmura Economics & Analytics to conduct a socioeconomic study, analyzing “site- and region-specific social, economic and environmental impacts [of uranium mining] and sustainability factors such as quality of life, infrastructure, local economic opportunities and property and real estate values. Results of this study are anticipated in December of 2011.”
Tim J,
Interesting that you provide a link to those who will benefit most if the mining is allowed.
I am concerned because the area under consideration is part of the watershed that drains into Lake Gaston and provides much of the potable water for Virginia Beach. I am skeptical that the mining can be done without significant danger of contamination of the water.
One needs only google coal slurry spills to read about the contamination of great swathes of landscapes and water ways from coal mining. The difference is that the contamination from the coal slurry might only be measured in decades but Uranium-238, the most prevalent isotope in uranium ore, has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. For all intents, once the accident happens it will be permanent and Mother Nature will have a very long memory.
LD, as part of the Environmental Impact process as required by law, the facts will be presented at public hearings in the local and affected communities including proposed mitigation plans and risks before the recommendation goes to the GA. This will be a 4-6 year process, and the studies may conclude that based on the risks, it may not be worth it. We need the facts.
Shocker: the NAACP released a statement against uranium mining in Virginia and claimed that the impacts to people of color and all people in Virginia are too great. Yes, uranium mining effects people of color, and all people.
If you want facts, visit Chernobyl, Fukushima, or Three Mile Island.
If you want facts, try reading something other than the mining company’s website.
In reality, we shouldn’t utilize nuclear energy until we have a long term nuclear waste storage facility. Since Yucca Mountain was effectively stonewalled by the representatives of Nevada and defunded by Obama, nuclear waste is sitting in temporary storage facilities scattered all over the country.
I’d also argue that the Federal Government should stop subsidizing nuclear energy. Why are our tax dollars paying for the nuclear industry?
Troll,your comparison of proposed uranium mining to “If you want facts, visit Chernobyl, Fukushima, or Three Mile Island.” is crazy talk and you should try to take your pills on schedule.
Nuclear power and uranium mining in Virginia are two different things in my opinion.
Yes, go look at what happened in Japan. The reactors stood up to a major earthquake with no serious damage, it was just the lack of planning for a major tsunami with reactors on the coast line that was the failure. We need to add the incident to the lessons learned.
As for Yucca Mountain, even though I am a tepid supporter of the Obama Administration, I will state that his actions here are one of the reasons my support is tepid. Nuclear power is part of the answer to America’s energy problems and long term storage needs to be provided. Yucca Mountain might not have been completely perfect, but it is better then the solution Obama has proposed (which is nothing).
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.