Contribute for Conservatism!

Share this post

About the author

Norman Leahy

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

14 Responses to "Irony is utterly lost on uranium ban supporters"

1. 

   Coleman Wilson January 18, 2012 21:08 pm

   Posted: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:51 pm

   Wealthy evoke ‘plantation mentality’

   So Ben Davenport and his “economic transformers” are against moving ahead on the Coles Hill uranium project?

   While this is not surprising, it is yet another sign of the great divide between the folks who work like the devil for low wages and the folks who enjoy the fruits of that labor and get their kicks by telling the rest of us what’s good for us and what’s bad for us.

   It is a modern-day version of the old “plantation mentality.”

   Davenport, more than others, would suffer from the development of the uranium project. He has a lot of people working for him who would flock to a company offering top wages.

   If he doesn’t understand this, then he probably believes in the tooth fairy. But I suspect he knows it very well.

   Keep in mind that these people opposing uranium mining moving ahead are the same folks who secretly sold our non-profit hospital in Danville to the highest bidder. They took that money (more than $200 million) and created an outfit called the Danville Regional Foundation. The very people who sold the hospital now control the Danville Regional Foundation and use its resources for their pet projects.

   Just recently, for example, Danville Regional Foundation threw away over $500,000 of our hospital money on a uranium study that virtually duplicated the work the Commonwealth of Virginia was already doing. And Danville Regional Foundation took that money out of Southside Virginia and spent it in North Carolina.

   So, if you recall the way they sold your hospital, and if you recall what they did with the proceeds, be warned that exactly the same instincts are at play when these folks start telling you that we need to delay uranium mining for more study after its been studied for years on end.

   Many people I know are struggling with two and three jobs to make ends meet.
   I’m sorry, but there’s no way on earth Ben Davenport and his super-wealthy pals can understand what it’s like for the honest people who work their hearts out and still struggle each month to pay their bills and hold up their heads at church on Sunday-and try to keep their children from knowing the pain of poverty.

   The last thing we need are the richest people in Southside Virginia telling us we need to further delay an economic project that can truly transform the region.
   We must have better jobs to give us better futures for our children and grandchildren.

   Larry Roach
   Gretna

2. 

   karen January 18, 2012 21:59 pm

   Was this written by Leahy or Henry Hurt? It is becoming increasingly difficult to discern the truly ignorant from the VUI supporters and PR staff.

3. 

   Norm Leahy January 19, 2012 06:33 am

   If what I wrote was “ignorant,” Karen, then refute it.

4. 

   LittleDavid January 19, 2012 07:40 am

   Norm,

   Well, I had to read reread the article very carefully to identify whether you thought Mr Davenport is an opponent or supporter of lifting the ban. What caused my confusion? Your concluding sentence:

   “The more we learn about the opponents of the uranium ban, and their deeply held concerns about this, that and the other, the more difficult it is to take them seriously.”

   Do you think he is opponent of the ban or an opponent of lifting the ban.

   For the record: I am concerned how lifting the ban might impact my locality’s (Virginia Beach) water supply. I am a strong supporter of nuclear power, and try not to be too much of a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) however Virginia Beach invested a large amount of capital, both political and monetary, in getting the Lake Gaston pipeline and I would hate to see our investment wasted. I also do not know of a practical alternative water supply for my community if the Lake Gaston water supply was rendered unusable due to radioactive contamination. Perhaps if those doing the mining had to provide a high enough bond to pay for the construction and operation of the desalinization plants Virginia Beach might have to have if the Lake Gaston water is no longer suitable for our water supply?

   If there is no risk of contamination, they should be able to get Loyd’s of London to guarantee/issue such a bond for a modest sum.

   Proponents of lifting the ban should put up or shut up. If you can’t convince Loyd’s of London there is little risk, then you can not convince me either.

5. 

   JR Hoeft January 19, 2012 08:19 am

   Hey, LD – how many nuclear reactors are sitting in the Elizabeth River right now?

   This argument about Uranium mining being unsafe for our drinking water in Hampton Roads is specious at best.

6. 

   Jamie Jacoby January 19, 2012 10:02 am

   IMO the state has an essential role here in protecting private property. Corporate America has, over the years, clearly demonstrated its willingness to take profits now while shifting burdens (pollution, bailouts, looted retirement plan investments, etc) to the taxpayers. I was a teenager in the 70′s, I remember pollution, and the bailouts and looting continue apace.

   However, “protecting private property” does not = “preventing all development,” “NIMBY,” nor does it = “absolutely no detectable downstream effluents.” Detection technologies have advanced to the point where “detectable” is most often a level far far below “harmful.” Radiation is very well studied and understood. I for one would be very very interested in pre-project survey results for use as baseline comparisons, along with some prior-agreed-to “intervention” strategies and trip points.

   Protecting private property also means protecting the rights of property owners to use their own property in whatever manner they choose which does not adversely impact neighboring property owners. Plus, the importance of domestic energy sources truly cannot be overestimated. The timing of this project is certainly not accidental; the global supply / demand situation for uranium is turning in favor of “demand:”

   http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/262742/20111207/global-scarcity-uranium-looms.htm

   “Data from the World Nuclear Association showed global mined uranium supply reached 53,663 tons in 2010, but is still insufficient to meet global demand. As a result, some utilities have been utilizing recovered fuel from Russian warheads as contained under the HEU agreement.

   But now Russia has declared it will withdraw from the HEU accord by the end of 2013, all the more constricting world supply. Russia’s pronouncement will remove 24 million pounds from present global supply. The HEU agreement has been in effect since the 1990s.”

   If the undeveloped uranium property in Virginia is worth what is claimed, project run times are decades, and provision is made for closing the project and dealing with tailings, the economic impact to neighboring properties should be positive.

   If we can’t do this, and do it right, then there’s a bunch of morons in charge.

7. 

   Steve Vaughan January 19, 2012 10:57 am

   While I’m leaning in favor of lifting the ban, I don’t think another year of study would hurt anything. What we’ve heard so far in inconclusive. Let’s really weigh the potential economic benefits against the threat of environmental consequences and make a decision. I don’t think the information is there yet to do that, which is why Gov. McDonnell and others are refusing to commit themselves.

8. 

   Catfish January 19, 2012 11:19 am

   If we can mine Uranium safely why do we have a fish advisory on the Roanoke River and parts of Buggs Island Lake ?

9. 

   Isophorone January 19, 2012 21:29 pm

   We don’t need to mine uranium or coal. Any good leftist Democrat will tell you that nowadays, you can just get electricity “from the plug.”

10. 

    LittleDavid January 20, 2012 07:48 am

    J.R.,

    OK, if my concern is specious, then let those who are going to do the mining get a bond guaranteed by Loyd’s of London. If there is no risk, the cost should not be that expensive.

    I believe there is a difference between operational nuclear reactors and mining. Every few years we hear about how coal mining tailings contaminate local water ways in West Virginia and Kentucky. The proposed uranium mine will be in the watershed that drains into Lake Gaston.

    I do not think my concern is specious, I think it is very legitimate. I have proposed a very simple way to allay my concerns, and that is with a bond which will guarantee Virginia Beach’s water supply. If my concerns are so unlikely, then the cost of the bond should be minimal.

    I will also point out that with nuclear reactors, the only reason they are economically competitive is because the government assumes most of the risk for if something should go wrong. If instead of a bond, the citizens of Virginia Beach were told by the federal government that the feds would guarantee the water supply in the event of an accident, that might be enough for me. I am not sure that would be enough for those who distrust the government.

    I think the latter (government backing) might be the best solution. A commercial bond might guarantee Virginia Beach’s water supply, but what about all the citizens who live along Lake Gaston, upstream, or near the mine? Also, a commercial bond without government backing really is no guarantee. Look at AIG, even if the issuer has a Triple AAA credit rating is no real guarantee.

11. 

    Jamie Jacoby January 20, 2012 08:38 am

    L.D.,

    Your arguments about the potential impact to the people of Va Beach are well taken. However, I would like to point out another impact to the people of Va Beach: war.

    It is entirely specious for anyone to argue that oil is not the primary reason we are “at war” with (i.e. occupying) the middle east, and why we also have puppet government(s) in place in certain Caucasus states (almost everyone is blissfully unaware of the amount of oil that passes through the region, how much drilling is going on in the Caspian, the importance of Georgia, Azerbaijan, Chechnya…).

    For the uninitiated, I suggest some extended reading about the subject of “petrodollars” followed by an examination of energy supplies for our “allies” in Europe. Most simply, the middle east and the Caucasus can be thought of as an “energy bank,” which needs to be guarded by the world’s most powerful “world police.” The “embassy” compound we have built in Iraq, for example, and our making the Saudi lineage of the 9-11 attackers a non-issue, gives clear indication of our motives.

    While the primary impact of this extended “state of war” is positive for most people in Va Beach, and I mean those who experience it as jobs jobs jobs, there are others who live there and whom experience it as rather a significant negative: death, maiming, psychological and emotional destruction, extended family separation, divorce, etc. These people matter, too, and they are suffering the things I’ve described in large part because of our lack of domestic energy supplies.

    Obummer’s nixing the Canadian pipeline project is no surprise, and should convince still more Americans that his actions are deliberate and that he has no respect for our men and women in uniform.

12. 

    LittleDavid January 20, 2012 20:38 pm

    Jamie,

    I take issue with your stating Obama nixed the Canadian pipeline. He did not. He was forced by Congress to issue a premature ruling before alternative routes could be studied so as to lessen the risk of spills in environmentally sensitive areas.

    I wish to state that I am in favor of the pipeline. However I am willing to wait to make sure we proceed wisely and do not regret rapid approval.

13. 

    Irony is utterly lost on uranium ban supporters – Bearing Drift … | Your Lake Gaston Vacation January 21, 2012 04:20 am

    [...] posted here: Irony is utterly lost on uranium ban supporters – Bearing Drift … Posted in Uncategorized | Tags: desalinization, doing-the-mining, gaston, high-enough, [...]

14. 

    Jamie Jacoby January 21, 2012 16:42 pm

    LD,

    That’s just a talking point that bears no resemblance to reality, but thanks for reminding me of the rationalization already presented by the MSM.

    Meanwhile, reality marches inexorably forward. Men and women continue to die. No comment on that?

    Business also marches inexorably forward.

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-20/obama-s-keystone-denial-prompts-canada-to-look-to-china-sales.html

    “Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama’s decision yesterday to reject a permit for TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL oil pipeline may prompt Canada to turn to China for oil exports.

    Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in a telephone call yesterday, told Obama “Canada will continue to work to diversify its energy exports,” according to details provided by Harper’s office. Canadian Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver said relying less on the U.S. would help strengthen the country’s “financial security.”

    The “decision by the Obama administration underlines the importance of diversifying and expanding our markets, including the growing Asian market,” Oliver told reporters in Ottawa.”