On Tuesday night, the Uranium Mining subcommittee of the Coal & Energy Commission held a meeting at Chatham High School where people could comment on the proposed socio-economic study. I was there for Star News to record the early part of the comments, and here’s a “random thoughts” article about what I observed.
- I had a bad feeling that even though this was supposed to be about the socio-economic study, it would devolve into people’s opinions about uranium mining in general. It wasn’t as bad as I feared, but the anti-mining people were out in full force. Oh well…
- Originally, I was pleasantly surprised at the first set of speakers who spoke were in favor of the studies (although that’s not what the meeting was about). However, it’s been shown that the deck was stacked. The pro-study group signed up at least 12 speakers before anybody else got a chance to put their name on the list. At a meeting held this time of night, all media is on a deadline so that we can get the story out as quickly as possible. Our coverage consisted of only the first hour of speakers. We had to hustle back to Danville and prepare the video for our 8 to 9 PM hour. As much as I’d like to laugh at the use of less-than-honorable tactics being used against a group who’s known to use less-than-honorable tactics, I can’t do that. I still believe that the scientific study is the best course of action, but this “stacking the deck” tactic was dirty and I strongly condemn it.
- Regarding this tactic, Karen Maute was referenced in a Register & Bee article as saying “the move was a corporate strategy to dominate the meeting while the press was covering the proceedings”. I know some people aren’t going to believe what I’m about to say, but she’s correct. I’m very disappointed in the Virginia Energy Independence Alliance for orchestrating this tactic and I feel they’ve set the pro-study faction’s cause back because of this maneuver.
- On the other side of the “less-than-honorable tactics” coin, Jack Dunavant yet again played the “scare tactics” card by saying that something like of uranium scrap would be lining the banks of the Banister River. As usual, Jack Dunavant is pulling scary so-called “facts” out of his butt. Face it, uranium-mining foes… none of us have any idea what can or will happen if uranium mining is allowed. That’s what the scientific study is for because you can’t use data from uranium mining efforts in the past to say that’s what would happen while using today’s technology. I’m honest enough to say I have no idea, and that’s why I’m backing the scientific study.
- I was pleased to hear the opinions of Don Merricks, Danny Marshall and Robert Hurt who spoke positively about the studies and how inclusive they should be.
- I’m very disappointed in the closed-mindedness of the elected officials who are strongly against uranium mining before the scientific data is in. If nothing else, the potential economic impact to this region should be enough to keep an open viewpoint. While I can almost excuse this behavior in small-town councils like Halifax that are led by Jack Dunavant, I’m amazed (and not in a good way) at House of Delegates member James Edmunds’ staunch anti-mining stand. Although he’s said that he’s completely opposed to uranium mining even if the government says it’s safe, I can always hope that he will understand the economic boost that would happen if mining is proved to be safe.
- I agree with Halifax Town Manager Carl Espy (and others) who believe that the socioeconomic study should be secondary to the scientific study. I also strongly agree with Halifax County Chamber of Commerce president Nancy Pool who said that $200,000 wasn’t going to buy much of a study and that the better research groups may not have interest in responding to the study proposal for that relatively small amount of money.
So that happened. I learned a lot by listening to the speakers but I’m still dismayed over the tactics used by the anti-mining group. I have lost a lot of respect for the Virginia Energy Independence Alliance because of their smart yet stupid “stack the deck” tactic that they’ve used. I remain in favor of the scientific study and believe that the socioeconomic study should come afterwards.
I am on the same page as you are with this. And I live along the Banister. We need facts and I agree the scientific study is paramount. Good overview. Thanks.
Scientific facts cannot measure the results of human error or greed. Two recent examples are the BP oil volcano and the Massey mine explosion. There are countless others.
The mining company speculates that it will be able to mine safely and turn a fast buck. Concerned citizens and non-investors who will suffer the consequences, speculate that it is not worth the gamble.
People’s justifiable fear of this risk IS part of both the social and the economic impact, for those of who live here, vacation here, or would like to do business here.
So it would be better if the anti people got their first and filled the pages as they had in the past? I am happy to see that the pro people are finally getting aggressive and taking a stand so people can get the real facts not the “Dunavant” facts. There was nothing illegal or unwethical about what they did, it is very common practice in public hearings. The only real thing the anti’s are mad about is that someone beat them to it! Boo Hoo
No, Watchman. It’s about bending the rules. If we can’t trust them to follow the rules on small issues, how can we trust them to follow the rules on the big issues? Two committee members also brought drinks in with them. I put mine back in the car when I saw the sign on the door that said No Food or Drinks Inside. It sounds petty out of context but as a security guard, you understand what happens when a few people think the rules don’t apply to them.
No rules were bent or broken for petes sake. And now you complain about them bringing drinks in? Whats next, they were wearing fur? Or they stepped on the grass on the way in? Just another example of “Gosh they did it before we could so now we are mad…..”
Were these dastardly drinks water? I would think that commission members would be allowed to wet their whistle’s from time to time.
Why should they be allowed to take special privileges? The sign said NO FOOD OR DRINKS. It’s human nature to bend rules and that is what happened in the Massey mine, the BP spill, our all too frequent food recalls, and what will happen if we mine, process, and store tons of radioactive materials. That is my whole point.
Rock, if you cannot see the difference in a commission member having a glass of water, and a person drinking a coke in the audience.
I am not sure if it is worth any further conversation with you.
The US senate has those signs on the door, yet the senators are allowed glasses of water from the provided pitchers at the podiums?
It seems that you stretching the levels of justifiable outrage to include the realm of mere pettiness.
I am sure that if you think and look hard enough, you might find something justifiable to be outraged about….maybe.
I am not outraged. I would be amused if it didn’t point to a deeper issues. I am making a point about human nature. Only two persons had drinks which were not supplied to them officially. Enough people have tendencies to think they can take shortcuts and that the rules do not apply to them to make uranium mining unsafe at any speed.
Mountains and molehills!
It would seem that with issues as important as these, opposition research would extend deeper than this.
Wow. Just wow.
what is deeper than human nature?
So, let me ask you…. are you ‘against’ all things, research, and plans that might ‘allow’ the depravity of human nature to reveal itself?
The potentiality for humans to behave wrongly, in and of itself, cannot be a reason to stop progress can it, as it is present in all ventures we undertake, no?
Like I said, I am hoping your opposition research is going to unearth (no pun intended) some real evidence why a study should not even be done – for if not…in an impersonation of the immortal (and inhuman, to boot) Yoda;
“Straws, you are grasping at”.
depends on how you classify acceptable risk and who actually pays the price. wall street got bail-outs, investors insure their “assets” (the owners of the bp deepwater horizon had insurance, they actually stand to make a profit). it’s the innocent bystanders who usually bear the brunt of accidents, mistakes, lack of foresight, etc.
I am with you on the stupidity of the bailouts, I am with you on the culpability of BP, I am with you on the failure of the last several presidential administrations, including this one, to adequately regulate using current law, and now they want to solve that by just adding new ones. I agree that those culpable for harm to others should pay, both criminally – upon conviction and civilly if warranted.
What I do not agree with you on, and cannot for the life of me see why it is so important to you…that a couple of commission members ‘dared’ to sip water while in a multi-hour public hearing.