This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
  • weasel2 Jan 9, 2013

    Based on recent technology up to 90% of uranium/radium can be removed by reverse osmosis. Other methods further remove more contaminants. As long as the actual mining is done correct it should not bother the watershed areas.

  • delta29alpha Jan 9, 2013

    First off do we need the Uranium? Do we have sufficient sources currently to supply our power plant needs. If not how can it be mined as safely as possible at this site or is there other safer sites available. What we need is almost impossible to find, a true and unbiased scientific opinion of the safety and feasibility of this project.

  • kayakfisher15 Jan 8, 2013

    You should all look up the facts about Uranium mining before commenting. Other sites have been damaged beyond repair. It is not about just the lakes, it is about our region, our community, our lives, our health. Not just the people that live on the lakes. It can effect millions of people in a very negative way. The jobs are very few that will come from the mines so do not use that as a argument. Have you noticed it is not even an American company?

  • SaveEnergyMan Jan 8, 2013

    Conventional water treatment removes the uranium and other solids in the water. Since the uranium is removed, the radioactivity is removed too.

    The uranium mined is not highly radioactive by itself - uranium occurs naturally in many rocks at low levels. Bombs and power plant rods are highly refined with more radioactive U-235. U-238 (99%+ of natural uranium) decays with alpha particles, which are not terribly dangerous. Not to say mining is not without risks - just that we can't equate uranium mining with highly radioactive nuclear waste - they are very different things.

  • cruzinlong Jan 8, 2013

    "Still, North Carolina lawmakers aren't taking any chances. Members of the General Assembly's Environmental Review Commission sent a letter last month to Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell expressing "significant concern" about the potential for environmental damage."

    I guess it's ok to frack away as long as you keep THAT enviromental damaging activity away from our major rec. lakes, is the thinking of our G.A. ?!
    How many people in the G.A. have property on Kerr and Gaston Lakes ?
    Raise your hands please.

  • hp277 Jan 8, 2013

    "No. 1, the chances of (uranium) getting in the water are infinitesimal, and No. 2, if it did get in, it's easily treated in a standard, conventional water treatment plant," Lehr said.

    Conventional water treatment removes radioactivity? Really? That's a lie.

  • ConservativeVoter Jan 8, 2013

    Another case of North Carolina sticking it's nose in other state's affairs.

  • whatelseisnew Jan 8, 2013

    Go for it Virginia.

  • wayneboyd Jan 8, 2013

    Froggy girl, I prefer having a uranium mine for a neighbor over a tree hugger any day!

  • superman Jan 8, 2013

    This is a classic example of it is ok near your house but I dont want it near mine. We need oil but if it is in your backyard you wouldnt want to drill. It is a different story if the oil is in my backyard.

  • godnessgracious2 Jan 8, 2013

    Well, technically radioactive atoms get into the dust. Then they emit the radiation.

  • monkeyboy Jan 8, 2013

    ""The legal public hearings have been held in Virginia – not one in North Carolina," Ferruccio said."

    hmm. the mines to be in VA, not NC. wonder why they hearings are being held in VA? stupid people are everywhere, it appears...

  • godnessgracious2 Jan 8, 2013

    The radiation gets in the dust and it get's blown around. There are cancer clusters around every uranium mine in world. Why do you think they banned it?

  • froggygirl Jan 8, 2013

    Let's ask the people out west how they like living next to uranium mining.

  • mep Jan 8, 2013

    DIG IT!!!!

Oldest First