Comments :: NC opposition builds to proposed Virginia uranium mine

NC opposition builds to proposed Virginia uranium mine

Click here to return to the Story

15 Comments

WRAL.com welcomes your comments on this story. All comments are moderated prior to publication based on our posting guidelines. Please review them prior to posting and if your message is not approved.

This story is closed for comments.

page 1 \| 2
<prev	next>

sort order: oldest first | newest first

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.

weasel2
January 9, 2013 2:54 p.m.

Report abuse

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.

delta29alpha
January 9, 2013 8:59 a.m.

Report abuse

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?

kayakfisher15
January 8, 2013 7:53 p.m.

Report abuse

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.

SaveEnergyMan
January 8, 2013 7:13 p.m.

Report abuse

"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.

cruzinlong
January 8, 2013 6:50 p.m.

Report abuse

"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.

hp277
January 8, 2013 6:21 p.m.

Report abuse

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

ConservativeVoter
January 8, 2013 6:17 p.m.

Report abuse

Go for it Virginia.

whatelseisnew
January 8, 2013 6:17 p.m.

Report abuse

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

wayneboyd
January 8, 2013 6:16 p.m.

Report abuse

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.