In the biggest stretch of logic since Jack Dunavant’s “Chemical Trespass” law (which was steamrolled into unconstitutional oblivion), Karen Maute comes up with another creative way to try and ban uranium mining.
Maute wants to know if megapark is protected
(Dr. Evil voice)Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight…
Let’s just say that the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors goes quite insane and passes this proposed piece of legislation. It would take approximately 38.6 seconds for any judicial review to rule it unconstitutional. The county simply doesn’t have the authority to put an any-mile ban of any activity thanks to the Dillon Rule.
Maute is an intelligent woman. Based on her SCC experience, she should know that this law would have no chance of surviving any judicial review, but then common sense seems to be lacking in lots of the SCC’s activities.
They’ve been talking about mining this crap since I was a kid. Just do it already. It’s not like Danville is going to really improve any time soon. A little glow might do the big d some good.
Bruce, I’m a little surprised at your attitude concerning this.
You know that I’m no tree-hugger, but the idea of mining this poison so close to home is beyond scary to me. The cancer risk alone that will come from the mining of uranium should be enough to turn any rational person against it.
I just don’t get you on this one.
I’m not for uranium mining, I’m for an independent study that will tell whether uranium mining can be done safely. If the study says “yes”, I’ve got enough of a belief in modern technology and science to trust it. If the study says “no”, then we move along until technology makes it possible at a later date.
You speak of “the cancer risk alone that will come from the mining of uranium”. I’d like to see a direct citation for that and you won’t be able to produce one because “the mining of uranium” is an unknown at this time. That’s where I have a big beef with the SCC-type of mental thuggery. They throw out all of these doom-and-gloom scenarios that are either based on total conjecture or stuff that happened in Australia in a “scare tactic” maneuver.
I’ve also got a problem with this asinine “Let’s put a 25-mile No Mining circle around um… well… HERE!” idea. It’s stupid and there’s a ZERO percent chance that if it ever passed that it would hold up in court.
What’s wrong with an independent study? Oh, I know the answer to that one. It just might say that uranium mining is safe. That would take away any leverage that SCC had and cement their reputation as doom-and-gloomers who were talking out of their ass from the beginning.
I’m not scared of the unknown. I want to learn more about it.
There’s no such thing as an “independent study” when billions of dollars are involved. Science is one thing, but regulations are enforced, or ignored, by government. The same kind of government which has oversight of the financial markets. The same kind of government which cannot(or will not) secure our borders. The same kind of government which regularly spends billions of dollars more than it takes in. The same kind of government which pays $600 for a $10 hammer and $2000 for a $30 toilet seat.
Uranium is known to cause increased risk of kidney disease by the way, and radon, which is released from uranium enriched rock definitely can cause lung cancer.
Uranium tailings, the waste product left behind for us to deal with for the next two hundred thousand years, contain radium and thorium. (The storage of the radioactive tailings must also be paid for perpetually, by a bankrupt government.)
Radium can be used in a medical setting to treat cancer, however long-term exposure can cause bone, liver and breast cancer. Thorium is also believed to increase the risk of cancer, although again it can be used in treating some diseases, over-exposure is detrimental to one’s health.
Why would we want this stuff brought to the surface where people will be exposed to it? What’s in it for us? Surely you’re not thinking that this is going to be some sort of economic boon for area folks! That’s a laugh, the only thing that area folks will share in is the risk!
Sorry Bruce, you may trust science, but I don’t trust people, particularly when there are large sums of money involved. As with all mining, they will get the gold…and southside with get the big glowing shaft.
There’s no way to rationally respond to the “Poisoned Well” (pun unintended) logical fallacy that you’ve set up with your opening sentence.
In response to my challenge for a direct citation for “the cancer risk alone that will come from the mining of uranium”, as I predicted, you were unable to provide one because there’s no such thing.
I did find this citation from a CDC website.
See, ya got nothin’. All you’ve presented is horrible scenarios that are based from hearsay & conjecture that have been injected with a fair amount of government conspiracy theories. I’m not going to live my life that way. I’m going to form my opinion by using objective & relative data.
Let’s also address another issue that I brought forward in my reply… the reason for this article. You haven’t addressed the fact that Maute is trying to create an ordinance that would clearly be tossed out (by means of the Dillon Rule). Instead of asking for a level playing field, she’s trying to change the rules of the game in the same way Jack Dunavant tried with his beloved “chemical trespass” ordinance.
Maute’s attempt at creating a no-mining zone has the stench of somebody who wants to avoid the independent study completely, but that seems to be the modus operandi of the SCC.
(At least she hasn’t advocated overthrowing the county government as the Shireen Parsons faction did…)
Bruce, I’m finished with it. I’ve said all I intend to say here about this subject.
You’re no fun anymore. 😉
Darn. That’s the end.
Oh mining near the park. Has anyone thought anymore about the Hairston Cememtary that is right there either. Forget the mining for just a bit. What about the cemetary. What about preserving that?