Culpepper's Star Exponent Runs Great Piece on Uranium Mining Study Process

It's great to see that the uranium mining issue is getting exposure statewide. This piece published today is a clear-minded look at how Virginians should approach the study process.

Most of the media attention surrounding this issue is coming from the areas of Southside and Hampton Roads. The coverage has mostly been negative because there's a media push being driven by mining opponents and they're trying to scare people into believing that uranium mining is unsafe.

I believe these opponents can't truthfully say this until the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission study is released.

Why Does the Uranium Study Group Report Condemn Computer Modeling?

In the Uranium Study Group report, the Halifax County Chamber of Commerce says, “Virginia should be wary of computer modeling of predicted future outcomes.” They say computer modeling of possible uranium diffusion through the water table shouldn’t be used because it’s unreliable.

I wouldn’t be surprised if we find out that this statement is false. The cited source for the claim comes from an organization called Earthworks that is dedicated to protecting the environment. The Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy should just do Earthworks a favor and ask Virginia Tech and the National Academy of Sciences to study the reliability of computer modeling. Earthworks should welcome the chance to prove themselves right.

It’s ironic that environmental groups like Earthworks are condemning computer modeling because these groups have inundated the airwaves with claims that global warming is happening and they have the “scientific evidence” to prove it. Considering their dependence on scientific evidence to prove that global warming is real, it would be hypocritical of environmental groups if they condemned the use of computer modeling in the study of uranium.

If the VCCE study finds that computer modeling is reliable, then computer modeling should be used when we all interpret its conclusion.

USG Recommendations Should Be Balanced With Positive Questions

The Halifax County Chamber of Commerce released their Uranium Study Group report earlier this month and it contains a comprehensive list of concerns by groups that oppose mining in Southside Virginia. Local community and environmental groups are having their voices heard in Richmond, but they shouldn’t be leading the discussion during the planning process for the study.

The USG report doesn’t contain the concerns of Virginians who would like to know the positive aspects of mining for uranium. Such as: How much does Virginia stand to benefit if mining is permitted? How much has technology improved since uranium mining was first conducted? Has mining been performed successfully?

Virginians have concerns about uranium mining and they don’t only focus on the negative aspect of uranium mining’s history. The questions that the USG posed to Virginia’s Coal and Energy Commission need to be balanced with positive views of uranium mining that give consideration to the improvements that have been made to mining technology.

The uranium mining study wouldn’t be fair and balanced if we only focused on the questions asked in the USG report.

Nuclear Energy Will Help End Dependence on Foreign Oil

The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed yesterday that talks about how America can end our dependence on foreign sources of oil. They explain:

“Pursuing nuclear power is another important option if we aim to reduce our carbon footprint and reliance on oil from hostile nations. Currently the U.S. is way behind the curve. Given the vast proliferation of nuclear power world-wide, its cleanliness, its efficiency, and its low cost, surely nuclear should not be off-the-table."

America’s urgent need for nuclear energy is another reason why we must study uranium mining in Virginia to see if it’s safe.

Does USG Report Really Address Community's Concerns?

Community Concerns Related to Uranium Mining in Virginia is the ambitious title to the recently released report from the Uranium Study Group. Did the group really talk to the entire “community” in the 131-page document?

The actual report is only about 20-pages long and it’s not too hard to read; I recommend you skim it. The other 111-pages contain the appendix that contains the sources of their report.

How can the Uranium Study Group be sure they addressed the concerns of the entire community? I don’t think they really did.

If you asked them, I’m sure the USG would say they did. If they think they addressed the concerns of the entire community, then I think we have a differing opinion on the definition of community.

In the context of the uranium mining issue, the community consists of the entire state of Virginia; they will be the ones who will decide to overturn the mining ban if that’s considered.

This report was released by the Halifax County Chamber of Commerce; do they have the resources to find out how Virginians feel about uranium mining?

The USG actually raises some excellent questions in their report, but I don’t think they can say they’ve addressed the concerns of entire community by just talking to their neighbors in South Boston.

Initial Thoughts on Uranium Study Group Report

Last Friday, the Uranium Study Group presented their report to Virginia’s Commission on Coal and Energy. The VCCE is holding public meetings to receive input on the questions that should be answered when The National Academy of Sciences and Virginia Tech concludes their study on the safety and viability of uranium mining in Southside Virginia.

The Uranium Study Group was formed by the Halifax Chamber of Commerce in September. According to The News & Record, The Halifax Chamber tasked the USG with soliciting “written input from area residents and to ascertain and present those related issues that are of concern to Halifax citizens”.

I’ve skimmed the 131-page report and it includes more arguments against uranium mining than actual questions they want answered. The VCCE isn’t asking the public to make arguments against mining; they just want the public to give them questions that should be answered in the study’s conclusion.

I’m still going to read the USG report because I’m open to reading arguments against uranium mining, but I wish they would have stuck to presenting the VCCE with questions only.

Why I'm Not a Carpetbagger

I received a rather nasty email from someone yesterday and they implicitly accused me of being a carpet bagger. The writer opens up by saying, “it is easy enough for you to sit up there in no.va. and tell us here in southside what we should do”.

It would have naive of me to think these types of attacks weren’t going to happen. Guess I should have explained myself when I first started writing my blog.

The truth is: I am passionate about politics and really believe in nuclear energy. I’m blogging about this issue because I really want to help advocate for a source of energy that is cheap and could provide our country with thousands of jobs. Why shouldn’t I gain political experience with an issue that I believe in?

Also, I’m not profiting from the mining venture. Neither Virginia Uranium nor nuclear interests have approached me to write this blog. I’m not being compensated for writing it. This blog is a night time hobby.

The author of the email also implores me to, “come and visit” in order to talk to the people of Southside Virginia. Really wish I could do that; I’d love to engage the Southside community and find out what they want to know about uranium mining.

Unfortunately, I’m not some trust fund kid that’s independently wealthy enough to work for free. Wish I could work on this issue full time, but I’m not in a position to do that right now. Having to work in Alexandria prevents me from coming down. Plus, my girlfriend would kill me if I spent all my time in Southside.

The email’s author also goes on to warn me about the dangers of mining, but like many bloggers opposed to uranium, they don’t back up their claims with facts. How can you make a statement of fact and not back it up with some proof that you’re right? This person isn’t going to convince me to advocate against uranium if they don’t provide me with facts.

You know, when I started this blog, I very well could’ve lumped uranium opponents into the not-in-my-backyard crowd. I chose to not do this because attacking a person's character is a dirty tactic. I didn’t reply to the email and accuse this person of being a n.i.m.b.y. because attacking a person’s character is out of line.

The email’s author was out of line. In the future, when we discuss uranium mining, let’s have a civil conversation.