Paul A. Locke, Chairman, Committee on Uranium Mining in Virginia, the Commonwealth of Virginia first undertook the study of uranium mining and processing more than 25 years ago, after several potentially commercially viable deposits of uranium were discovered in the state. Since that time, issues surrounding uranium mining have raised substantial questions and have been extensively debated and discussed [by anti-mining, anti-nuclear activities and associated state representatives]. In 2009, the National Research Council of the National Academies was asked to undertake this study and address a series of detailed questions about uranium mining, processing, and reclamation to assist decision making by the Commonwealth of Virginia. In accepting its charge to address a highly emotive issue such as uranium mining and its related activities [by a few activists groups], the committee was mindful of its obligation to provide technical and scientific answers to the questions in its statement of task. In doing so, the committee benefited from briefings provided by international experts, including U.S. and international regulators, scientists, engineers, and others. Equally important, the committee benefited from the extensive testimony provided by the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
We received many hours of public input, spread over all but one of our committee meetings, but particularly focused on the two evening “town hall” meetings that we held in Danville and Richmond, Virginia. Hundreds of members of local communities attended and spoke at these town hall sessions. On behalf of the committee, The committee chairman expressed the committee's appreciation for the many specific comments and questions directed to the committee at these gatherings. The committee is hopeful that our report is reflective of what we learned, and that with this report we have managed to help inform the public discussion and debate on this important topic. Although we specifically do not make any recommendations concerning whether mining and processing of uranium should or should not be permitted in the Commonwealth of Virginia, we believe that this report will provide a solid scientific basis to inform those who will make such decisions on behalf of Virginia citizens and their communities.
The need to prepare our report in time for the 2011-2012 legislative session in Virginia imposed a very tight time limit, as we sought to collectively understand the scientific, technical, and regulatory subtleties of issues usually outside our specific disciplines. As we started the committee process, we realized that it would not be possible, considering the breadth of the task statement and the time constraints, to prepare a scientifically and technically dense treatise. I thank the committee for rising to the challenge and preparing a report that we hope will be—as much as possible given the specialized nature of its content—accessible to legislators and the wider public who are interested in this topic. I would also like to thank the committee members for their thoughtful deliberations and willingness to consider alternative viewpoints and learn from, and share, expertise across disciplines. Finally, the committee acknowledges the support provided by the National Research Council staff, who handled our numerous and sometimes challenging logistic and research demands. In particular, the committee would like to thank Deborah Glickson, Jason Ortego, and Solmaz Spence for contributing to the report writing and research efforts, and Courtney Gibbs and Penelope Gibbs for making sure that our meetings ran without a hitch. Stephanie Johnson added her scholarship and organizational skills and, by doing so, improved our work.
Anthony de Souza provided the committee with his valuable perspective and experience. Special thanks and praise go to two staff members who were instrumental to
this report. Nicholas Rogers played a key role in almost all aspects of this project as a researcher and financial manager. And David Feary, our study director, kept the committee on track and moving in the right direction. The committee is indebted to him for his hard work and leadership.
POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS
[The I2M Web Portal editors have selected that section of this report released in 2012 that discussed "Potential Health Effects" in the report summary for special review and comment here:]
• Uranium mining and processing are associated with a wide range of potential adverse human health risks [This first statement is a gross exaggeration, and sets the basis for additional unfounded claims]. Some of these risks arise out of aspects of uranium mining and processing specific to that enterprise, whereas other risks apply to the mining sector generally, and still others are linked more broadly to large-scale industrial or construction activities. These health risks typically are most relevant to individuals occupationally exposed in this industry, but certain exposures and their associated risks can extend via environmental pathways to the general population.
• Protracted exposure to radon decay products generally represents the greatest radiation-related health risk from uranium-related mining and processing operations. ["Protracted exposure" is not relevant and is another exaggeration, this time to related to dangerous radiation associated with "uranium mining and processing operations" ]. Radon’s alpha-emitting radioactive decay products are strongly and causally linked to lung cancer in humans. Indeed, the populations in which this has been most clearly established are uranium miners that were occupationally exposed to radon.[This too is a gross exaggeration presented to reinforce the fear of radiation. What was not included is the fact that the issues involved uranium miners who worked in underground mines, and who smoked, during the 1950s and 1960s in the western U.S. and who showed an increase in lung cancer. This was the result of poor ventilation in the early uranium mines and is not applicable to open-pit mining as proposed in Virginia.]
• In 1987, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recognized that current occupational standards for radon exposure in the United States do not provide adequate protection for workers at risk of lung cancer from protracted radon decay exposure, recommending that the occupational exposure limit for radon decay products should be reduced substantially. To date, this recommendation by NIOSH has not been incorporated into an enforceable standard by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.[Again, shameful misleading statements here ....what few underground uranium mines that once existed in the U.S. quickly installed appropriate ventilation in these mines, and prohibited smoking in all underground mines. Again, this bullet item has nothing to do with open-pit mining or processing of uranium ore].
• Radon and its alpha-emitting radioactive decay products are generally the most important, but are not the sole radionuclides of health concern associated with uranium mining and processing. Workers are also at risk from exposure to other radionuclides, including uranium itself, which undergo radioactive decay by alpha, beta, or gamma emission. In particular, radium-226 and its decay products (e.g., bismuth-214 and lead-214) present alpha and gamma radiation hazards to uranium miners and processors. [Compounding exaggerations for impact on the reader regarding fear of radiation. There are no legitimate health concerns regarding these "products" becasue radionuclides do not "radiate" more than a few feet away from an ore sample, and even then alpha radiation is stopped by a sheet of paper, beta radiation is stopped by a two-inch board. Gamma radiation falls off in intensity after a few feet....so no uranium miner would be exposed any significant length of time, far less than the gamma radiation coming from space every second of every day on Earth. Humans and life in general have evolved with some of this radiation for millions of years, and could be partially involved in the progress of human evolution.]
• Radiation exposures to the general population resulting from offsite releases of radionuclides (e.g., airborne radon decay products, airborne thorium-230 (230Th) or radium-226 (226Ra) particles, 226Ra in water supplies) present some risk. The potential for adverse health effects increases if there are uncontrolled releases as a result of extreme events (e.g., floods, fire, earthquakes) or human error. The potential for adverse health effects related to releases of radionuclides is directly related to the population density near the mine or processing facility.["Some risk"? to maintain the fear mongering. "Extreme events" would dilute any radioactivity by reducing ore-mass.]
• Internal exposure to radioactive materials during uranium mining and processing can take place through inhalation, ingestion, or through a cut in the skin. External radiation exposure (e.g., exposure to beta, gamma, and to a lesser extent, alpha radiation) can also present a health risk. [More exaggeration ...becasue no "miner" inhales, ingests, or inserts uranium ore into skin in any serious quantity. A ridiculous assertion by author].
• Because 230Th and 226Ra are present in mine tailings, these radionuclides and their decay products can—if not controlled adequately—contaminate the local environment under certain conditions, in particular by seeping into water sources and thereby increasing radionuclide concentrations. This, in turn, can lead to a risk of cancer from drinking water (e.g., cancer of the bone) that is higher than the risk of cancer that would have existed had there been no radionuclide release from tailings.[Current regulations require mining companies to install and sample monitoring wells surrounding mine tailings to monitor aquifer conditions. In the event, elevated radioactive constituents are reported, remediation of the affected groundwater is required.]
• A large proportion of the epidemiological studies performed in the United States, exploring adverse health effects from potential off-site radionuclide releases from uranium mining and processing facilities, have lacked the ability to evaluate causal relationships (e.g., to test study hypotheses) because of their ecological study design.[This bullet item is double-speak on "causal relationships, aka exaggeration of conditions lacking direct evidence].
• The decay products of uranium (e.g., 230Th, 226Ra) provide a constant source of radiation in uranium tailings for thousands of years, substantially outlasting the current U.S. regulations for oversight of processing facility tailings.[More pointless exaggeration ....all low level radiation issues. This bullet point also applies to not mining the existing uranium ore that presently exists within an aquifer ....naturally contaminating the existing groundwater. Perhaps the ore body should be removed to eliminate the uranium and associated sources of radioactivity?]
• Radionuclides are not the only uranium mining- and processing-associated occupational exposures with potential adverse human health effects; two other notable inhalation risks are posed by silica dust and diesel exhaust. Neither of these is specific to uranium mining, but both have been prevalent historically in the uranium mining and processing industry. Of particular importance is the body of evidence from occupational studies showing that both silica and diesel exhaust exposure increase the risk of lung cancer, the main risk also associated with radon decay product exposure. To the extent that cigarette smoking poses further risk in absolute terms, there is potential for increased disease, including combined effects that are more than just additive.[This is now addressed if silica dust and diesel fumes are known to be present by requiring face-masks, just like other industries. Welcome to the enlightened industrial age.]
• Although uranium mining-specific injury data for the United States were not available for review, work-related physical trauma risk (including electrical injury) is particularly high in the mining sector overall and this could be anticipated to also apply to uranium mining. In addition, hearing loss has been a major problem in the mining sector generally, and based on limited data from overseas studies, may also be a problem for uranium mining.[What? This is typical industry issues; accidents happen less in uranium mining than in sand and gravel mining becasue of the increased regulatory safety control that are now in place].
• A number of other exposures associated with uranium mining or processing, including waste management, also could carry the potential for adverse human health effects, although in many cases the detailed studies that might better elucidate such risks are not available.[Clearly reaching for problems that do not exist, or that are already handled by industry safely].
• Assessing the potential risks of multiple combined exposures from uranium mining and processing activities is not possible in practical terms, even though the example of multiple potential lung carcinogen exposures in uranium mining and processing underscores that this is more than a theoretical concern.[Also reinforcing and pandering a connection between scary lung cancer with uranium mining and processing, for the sole purpose of impacting the reader with fear of radiation].
[For a review of other activist attempts to attack uranium mining (and thereby nuclear power) development, see: http://i2mconsultants.com/downloads/corp/ConfrontingBias.pdf ].
[In an Editorial in the Richmond-Times Dispatch, Robin Beres piles on in support of the recent ban of uranium mining in Virginia. Claims of health and safety issues have no basis in fact and are consistent with the views of the ignorant and also "boneheaded" anti-nuclear adversaries, who have likely been supported by a combination of renewable and oil and gas interests, see: https://www.richmond.com/opinion/our-opinion/editorial-the-right-call-on-uranium-mining/article_a0a06760-a028-557f-9f1c-c97908d4ec19.html
[Even more piling on from the new media perpetuating misinformation: The radioactive tailings would be put back into the pit or otherwise underground where the radioactive material resided in nature. Second, underground mining may be the answer to evaluate, which would eliminate all actual concerns, perceived or imagined:
https://www.godanriver.com/opinion/editorials/capping-the-debate-over-uranium-mining/article_dd8725e2-c635-5d10-9e3e-3d28b3a90c0d.html Open-pit mining is not harmful as many activists seem to tout to the general public, but it should be noted that their agenda is actually anti-nuclear power, and anti-mining is just guise to cover their real agenda].
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
