Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Moderator: HAZ - Moderators

Linked Guides none
Linked Areas none
User avatar
Canyonram
Posts: 230
Joined: Jun 01 2006 9:03 pm
City, State: Payson, AZ

Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by Canyonram » Dec 21 2010 12:14 pm

Denison Mines has applied to the Arizona Dept. of Environmental Quality to mine uranium near the Canyon. There are over 1,000 mining claims within miles of the Park that will watch the decision and then proceed. The debate has been ongoing for a few years---uranium prices dropped in the 1980's but, with the increased interest in nuclear fuel as a power source, prices have gone back up and uranium mining is now more profitable.

For some history on the current move to begin mining:

(dead link removed)

(or use your search box on "uranium mining grand canyon"

For the Denison Mine application:

(dead link removed)

For the Native American perspective:
(dead link removed)
http://www.indigenousaction.org/uranium ... nd-canyon/

There will be public hearings in Flag and Fredonia---during the peak of snow storm season.

User avatar
azbackpackr
Posts: 8122
Joined: Jan 21 2006 6:46 am
City, State: Flag-summer-Needles-winter

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by azbackpackr » Feb 02 2011 9:30 am

There are times when I enjoy sorting through the various pros and cons on issues. I find I can often take a fairly neutral view, while listening to various viewpoints, before making up my mind (or not--only neurotics insist that we TAKE A STAND on everything...). But right now I don't have time.
There is a point of no return unremarked at the time in most lives. Graham Greene The Comedians
A clean house is a sign of a misspent life.

User avatar
PaleoRob
Posts: 2341
Joined: Apr 03 2006 12:21 pm
City, State: Grand Junction, CO
Contact:

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by PaleoRob » Feb 02 2011 11:17 am

Canyonram wrote: I once met a backpacker in the middle of the Paria Canyon with a metal detector---he said he was scanning for old coins left by the early explorers.
I think that's pretty neat. Not what I would do, but interesting. We have our own ways of taking away meaning and fulfillment in the outdoors.
be leery of sources like Wikipedia or authors who cite themselves as the source----even I can write for Wikipedia. I try and stick to peer-researched articles and scientific papers or first-hand accounts from the victims.
As a sometimes-editor of Wikipedia, I think that it does have research potential. Not everything is gospel truth, so to speak, but there is a pretty rigorous system of peer checks-and-balances (and even peer review). If an article is good, it will have the technical papers listed in its references - I like to start from there.
The book 'Yellow Dirt: An American Story of a Poisoned Land and a People Betrayed" by Judy Pasternak will soon be out in paperback---if you have even any interest in the impact of uranium mining on the Navajo this book is a heartbreaking account of both the environmental and human damage done by uranium mining/milling on the Navajo Nation.
Interesting. I had asked about this book earlier, but no one seemed to have read it, so I decided to pick it up on Amazon this week! It should be here soon - I'll post a review and let you know what I think.
Closer to the Canyon, I've sent some emails to the NPS seeking information regarding uranium contamination of the Little Colorado River and the area between Cameron and the Canyon's eastern border. The uranium mined in this area was close to the surface and open pits were left to collect rainwater and form lakes on this plateau. Navajo living in the area who took their water and cared for their lifestock in the area fed by these new 'lakes' have suffered from the contamination. Years ago, the Park Service used to maintain the jeep road from Desert View out to overlooks---the Canyon Park border hugs along the Rim. Since the extent of the uranium mining contamination, that road has been abandoned and is no longer safe to travel. My query to the Park Service is if they have picked up any contamination out that way and if hikers need to stay away.
I'd be interested to hear what they have to say about that. I can query some of my friends out there too to see what they say.
"The only thing we did was wrong was staying in the wilderness to long...the only thing we did was right was the day we started to fight..."
-Old Spiritual
My book, The Marauders on Lulu and Amazon

User avatar
PaleoRob
Posts: 2341
Joined: Apr 03 2006 12:21 pm
City, State: Grand Junction, CO
Contact:

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by PaleoRob » Feb 03 2011 7:09 am

Interestingly enough - not related to uranium mining but related to prior treatment of Native Americans - Winona LaDuke gave a speech in Flag on Tuesday that was on the front page of the Az Daily Sun yesterday. LaDuke (of Jewish and Native extraction) said that the treatment of Native Americans should not be compared to the Jewish holocaust. I wasn't able to read the whole article, but I found it interesting - my politically active Navajo coworker is the one who brought it to my attention.
"The only thing we did was wrong was staying in the wilderness to long...the only thing we did was right was the day we started to fight..."
-Old Spiritual
My book, The Marauders on Lulu and Amazon

User avatar
Canyonram
Posts: 230
Joined: Jun 01 2006 9:03 pm
City, State: Payson, AZ

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by Canyonram » Feb 03 2011 12:01 pm

Pagerob:

Winona LaDuke is a long-time activist on behalf of human rights. She was at NAU and spoke on the Jewish Holocaust -- officially, Jan. 27 is the day Auschwitz was liberated. Here's the sentence from the AZ Daily Sun article that , the one that you did not fully read, but you drew an erroronous conclusion "The writer and Harvard graduate urged no comparison between the suffering of the Jews (her mother is Jewish) and of Native Americans." She was on campus to speak about the Nazi/Jewish Holocaust and at the time did not draw any comparisons---that is not a direct quote from LaDuke but an observation made by the author of the article. You imply that she made no comparison and that it was a direct quote from her. She has consistently used the term 'Holocaust' in her writings and speeches to describe the extermination of Native Peoples and has long spoken out against the genocide and American Holocaust of Native Americans.

"Our greatest problem with all of this in America is that there has been no recognition of the cultural extinction, no owning up to it, no atonement for what happened, no education about it. When I ask people how many different kinds of Indians they can identify, they can name scarcely any. America's mythology is based on the denial of the native--of native humanity, even of native existence. Nobody admits that the holocaust took place. This is because the white settlers believed they had a God-given right to the continent, and anyone with this right wouldn't recognize what happened as holocaust. Yet it was a holocaust of unparalleled proportions: Bartholomew de las Casas and other contemporaries of Columbus estimated that fifty million indigenous people in the Western Hemi- sphere perished in a sixty-year period. In terms of millions of people, this was probably the largest holocaust in world history.

Now, it is not appropriate for me to say that my holocaust was worse than someone else's. But it is absolutely correct for me to demand that my holocaust be recognized. And that has not happened in America. Instead, nobody knows anything about the native people, not even educated people. Why? Because this system is based on a denial of our existence. We are erased from the public consciousness because if you have no victim, you have no crime. As I said, most Americans can hardly name a single Indian nation. Those who can are able to name only those that have been featured in TV Westerns: Comanche, Cheyenne, Navajo, Sioux, Crow. The only image of a native that is widely recognized in this society is the one shown in Westerns, which is a caricature. It is a portrayal created in Hollywood or in cartoons or more recently to a minimal degree in "New Age" paraphernalia. In this society we do not exist as full human beings with human rights, with the same rights to self-determination, to dignity, and to land--to territorial integrity--that other people have."

Quote from LaDuke: (dead link removed)

You do her a great disservice by attempting to gloss over her work and misquote her on an article that you didn't even bother to fully read (it is a small article on-line requiring a few minutes to read) or provide a link on the AZ Daily Sun webpage.

(dead link removed)

Those of Jewish heritage have long claimed the primacy over "Holocaust" as something that happened to their culture apart from all others. Not so. Why would anyone want to insist that one Horror is greater or more important or more relevant than the Horror visited upon another people/culture??? If you want to make the comparison, there really isn't one to make. "More recent and more honest studies estimate the precontact civilization to have been between nine and eighteen million. This standard of measure puts the rate of attrition of indigenous populations at between 98 and 99 percent--that is, near total extermination. The rate of attrition of Jewish populations in Europe is commonly calculated at between 60 and 65 percent. Put in terms of survival rates, this means that two-thirds of the global Jewish population and about one third of the European Jewish population survived the Nazi Holocaust, whereas a mere remnant population of 1 to 2 percent survived the American Holocaust. This seriously calls into question any notion of "unparalleled" or "total extermination" of the Jews in the Nazi Holocaust."

That quote is from an article that examines the the full issue of the American/Nazi Holocaust available here:
(dead link removed)

You are more than welcome to be proud of your Jewish heritage----but there is nothing to gain by trying to trump the Native American experience with the Nazi Holocaust.

If you had bothered to fully read the AZ Daily Sun Article, you would realize that LaDuke did indeed speak out against Uranium Mines among other environmental issues---she has long advocated against uranium mines and spoke before Congress on the issue when she was only 18. At her recent NAU talk, she urged those in attendance to 'Do not be docile . . .' when it comes to these issues.

Please invite your 'politically active' Navajo to the forum. A 'politically active' person should have no qualms about joining the discussion and speaking out. It might be more believable to have him/her post directly than being 'quoted' by you.

User avatar
PaleoRob
Posts: 2341
Joined: Apr 03 2006 12:21 pm
City, State: Grand Junction, CO
Contact:

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by PaleoRob » Feb 03 2011 4:58 pm

Canyonram wrote:Blah blah blah
Please quit with the insinuations and assumptions about me and what I did. It was placed in front of me about minute before a meeting started - I only had time to read the front page portion which contained this: "The writer and Harvard graduate urged no comparison between the suffering of the Jews (her mother is Jewish) and of Native Americans." You're right, that is not a direct quote from LaDuke, but it is a summary of what she said by someone who was there. You should also note that because I did not have the article in my hands, I did not misquote at all - I made no quote (defined as having quotation marks around words to indicate precisely the words that were spoken by the attributed speaker), I paraphrased. In case anyone is wondering, I did this on purpose to show that this was not a direct quote from LaDuke. The reporter did the same thing as I. Are you saying that the reporter made this up from whole cloth? To compare, I said:
PageRob wrote:LaDuke (of Jewish and Native extraction) said that the treatment of Native Americans should not be compared to the Jewish holocaust.
The Az Sun said:
azdailysun.com wrote:The writer and Harvard graduate urged no comparison between the suffering of the Jews (her mother is Jewish) and of Native Americans.
I fail to see how I have done "her a great disservice" by rephrasing one sentence from an article that conveys exactly the same meaning as the original sentence.
Sorry that I had to work instead of read the whole article. :roll: Before going to work the next day I got online and posted a few quick sentences about what I had read - I had not yet had a chance to read the complete article at that point but I did correctly convey one of the ideas from the front page of the article that I had read.
Please invite your 'politically active' Navajo to the forum. A 'politically active' person should have no qualms about joining the discussion and speaking out.
As I said before, he is a technophobe and not a hiker - why would he join an online community of hikers? If you think I'm making him up, that's your prerogative. It is obvious that my sources from earlier didn't satisfy you, since you never responded, so I don't see why having someone else join the conversation would bring any actual weight.
It might be more believable to have him/her post directly than being 'quoted' by you.
If you want to call me a liar, do it straight instead of prancing around the issue. You continually call into question my character - suggesting that I name a proposed claim after a madman and killer. You call me greedy, you question my financial motives, and suggest that I am "developing a mine" to "put some cash into my bank account" while not one of those statements is born out by fact (indeed my statements indicated a financial loss on staking a claim and I never said that I would develop the property). You accused me of being an apologist for the mining industry and then ask if I work for the mining industry, de facto calling me a shill for uranium mining companies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill ...specifically:
Wikipedia.org wrote:or who acts as an apologist for glaring flaws. In this sense, they would be an implicit "shill" for the industry at large, possibly because their income is tied to its prosperity
Quite frankly I'm sick of these personal attacks that have nothing to do with the facts in the debate. I have tried to be impassive and connected with facts, not emotions (which includes personal attacks). I have backed up every single one of my statements with sources (per your request, though I at first assumed that the interested on a non-peer reviewed board would be able to use Google). I sincerely doubt that you even read my post citing sources. This is backed up by your mention of Yellow Dirt 22 days after I asked about it earlier in the thread. Either you hadn't read it at the time and didn't respond, or you simply 'glossed over' something I was asking. I guess to each their own.

You stated:
Canyonram wrote:Looks like the conversation has withered away once PageRob and I stoppped the individual debate
. My hypothesis is that most people don't want to wade into the mud slinging that has been going on in this thread. There was never much participation after you and I started our debate. It was already withered by you and I.

If you want to discuss the treatment of native peoples past and present, start another thread. We've gotten too off topic in here (which I admit my part in).
"The only thing we did was wrong was staying in the wilderness to long...the only thing we did was right was the day we started to fight..."
-Old Spiritual
My book, The Marauders on Lulu and Amazon

User avatar
CannondaleKid
Posts: 1251
Joined: May 04 2004 8:39 pm
City, State: Mesa, AZ
Contact:

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by CannondaleKid » Feb 03 2011 6:10 pm

@PageRob: : app :

@canyonram: This thread never gained momentum because it was already on the slippery slope of getting too personal and nobody wanted to join the slide into the mire.

In My Humble Opinion... I felt this thread was getting too personal well before my post about debates losing their value and I'd say by now it's time to shake hands and walk away. Or if no handshakes are offered, just walk away.

At the risk of offending free-speech advocates... if we could vote on it my vote would be in favor of locking this thread.

'Nuf said. :out:
CannondaleKid

User avatar
Canyonram
Posts: 230
Joined: Jun 01 2006 9:03 pm
City, State: Payson, AZ

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by Canyonram » Feb 04 2011 12:06 pm

PageRob: Anyone who has the endurance to follow this thread to this point has ample opportunity to reach their own conclusions . . . that includes drawing conclusions regarding my 'character' or your 'character' based on our postings. Whether or not someone agrees with your self-evaluation and summary of your 'character' is not for me to say. Both of us have posted and if others who follow the debate concludes something about our 'characters' that is their option----we have both invited that by posting our opinions and arguments on a public access forum.

To keep the debate on the central question, I'll repeat the basic question that I have posed to you a couple times without response. One last time, "Are you for or against Uranium Mining near Grand Canyon?" This includes not just the Denison Mine application but the many other mining claims already established in the area. Your reponse would go a long way to provide the framework for your answers and comments in our debate.

Cannondale: Can you name one issue that has vested interest on both sides that does not get 'personnel?' or has one side accusing the other that their 'character' is being damaged or challenged? I have been involved in many environmental issues and public health issues/regulation development over the years----not once has the debate stayed focused on the 'issue' without one side (or the other, or both) complaining that the other side is getting "too personal." If you don't care for that part of the process, by all means bow out. You are not required to partcipate nor or you required to read either my comments or PageRob's comments. You did voice your opinion that you were against Uranium Mining near the Canyon. (I stand corrected on this last statement---when Cannondale posted his vote on Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon he stated "Yes" I orginally read his "Yes" that "Yes, he was opposed to Uranium Mining"---he has corrected my error in a comment below that "Yes, he is in favor of Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon." My apology for reading what I wanted to read in his previous comment.) I don't believe that vote has earned you right to 'vote' to shut down this entire thread.

While individual forum participants can chose to either follow or ignore this thread, it is not an issue that can be walked away from---it is an 'Either-Or' in terms of continued development of Uranium Mining near Grand Canyon. Either Denison (and possibly others) are going to operate near the Canyon or they are not going to earn their permits. Either the Native Americans (such as the Havasupai) who live in the Canyon are going to be subjected to Uranium Mining hazards or they are not. Walking away from the debate when it gets heated is equivalent to a vote to allow the Uranium Mining operations to proceed. Silence on the issue is also a vote to allow the Mining operations. 'Locking' this thread or stopping additional comments would be yet another way to vote to allow the Uranium Mining near Grand Canyon.

If you love the Canyon and want to enjoy what is has to offer in one's own lifetime requires taking a stand to protect it. To keep the Canyon a place for future generations and the Native Americans who live in and around the Canyon requires taking a stand to protect it. I'm sorry if the debate is getting 'too personal' for your tastes. . . but that is the nature of these type of issues. That doesn't give you the right to 'vote' to 'lock the discussion.' If you are content to allow others to make the decision on what happens at the Canyon---and bow out of the debate---then be prepared to live with the impact and the decision that others make. You are welcome to hide your head in the sand . . . but be careful since it may be uranium mining wastes. There is no retroactive option once Uranium Mining begins in earnest around the Canyon---by its very nature Uranium Mining leaves a toxic footprint on the land, environment, and people that will be a legacy for many generations. We will not be able to backtrack once multiple mines go into the breccia pipes in the vicinity of the Canyon---we'll be left with the same environmental nightmare that exists on the Navajo Nation.

I personally have no desire to 'shake hands' and 'walk away' from anyone who advocates allowing Uranium Mine Development near Grand Canyon. I trust that the moderator of this forum allows debate on issues such as Uranium Mining and doesn't 'lock the thread.'
Last edited by Canyonram on Feb 04 2011 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tough_Boots
Posts: 1723
Joined: Mar 28 2008 7:08 pm
City, State: Phoenix, AZ
Contact:

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by Tough_Boots » Feb 04 2011 12:31 pm

I kind of agree with Canyonram on a lot of his points made on his last post and in general about uranium mining. The minor research I've done just on Yucca Mtn near Las Vegas is enough to warrant a major distaste in this industry. I do, though, think (and this is from experience -- for anyone that has followed arguments I've unfortunately been a negative part of on HAZ :) ) in afterthought from these arguments turning so negative and looking poorly on all those involved that online forums allow a really nice option that doesn't appear in face-to-face life. That is simply that we can write what we want but have the option to edit and simmer it down before posting. The discussion on this forum or any other on HAZ is probably not going to change the world in any politcal way but it can give people the information to do so. If we want to get involved in the heated world outside of HAZ, we can then take the initiative to become involved and throw our passion into it there. It becomes very obvious that when discussions on HAZ begin to get heated, we see less people taking part and adding their opinions, knowledge, and experience which defeats the purpose of a forum. Again, I've been guilty of this and don't mean to be hypocritical but would like to think that I've learned from it. :)
"there is no love where there is no bramble."
--bill callahan

User avatar
CannondaleKid
Posts: 1251
Joined: May 04 2004 8:39 pm
City, State: Mesa, AZ
Contact:

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by CannondaleKid » Feb 04 2011 2:03 pm

Canyonram wrote:You did voice your opinion that you were against Uranium Mining near the Canyon.
It is no longer a debate when inaccurate statements are posed as truth, like the above statement...

I did NOT say I was against uranium mining in the Grand Canyon or anywhere. Go back and read the post slowly if you don't believe me... here it is from my previous post where I posed the various responses:

Mine uranium in the GC area? Yes-No
Mine uranium ANYWHERE? Yes-No

To which, at the end of that same post I answered: Yes&Yes
In other words, I am in favor of mining uranium if we are to keep using nuclear fusion for generating electricity.
Tough_Boots wrote:It becomes very obvious that when discussions on HAZ begin to get heated, we see less people taking part and adding their opinions, knowledge, and experience which defeats the purpose of a forum.
: app :
Thanks Kyle! My point exactly...
(Note: The emphasis in Kyle's comments are solely mine)

Oh yes, for the record I did not ask that the thread be locked (nor did I expect it to be), I simply said that's what MY vote would be IF I were asked.

Last thing about debates... way back in high school I was taught the most important debate rule was:
Leave your personal views and your personal experiences out of account; what is important is exclusively the quality of your arguments.
CannondaleKid

User avatar
PaleoRob
Posts: 2341
Joined: Apr 03 2006 12:21 pm
City, State: Grand Junction, CO
Contact:

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by PaleoRob » Feb 04 2011 3:35 pm

CannondaleKid wrote:fusion for generating electricity.
Just a quick note: we use fission, not fusion for electricity generation. There are attempts to use fusion (fusing hydrogen together to make helium) for electricity, but none have been successful.
As I was explaining to my students today, the difference between fission and fusion is the difference between demolishing and building a house.
"The only thing we did was wrong was staying in the wilderness to long...the only thing we did was right was the day we started to fight..."
-Old Spiritual
My book, The Marauders on Lulu and Amazon

User avatar
CannondaleKid
Posts: 1251
Joined: May 04 2004 8:39 pm
City, State: Mesa, AZ
Contact:

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by CannondaleKid » Feb 04 2011 3:51 pm

PageRob wrote:the difference between fission and fusion is the difference between demolishing and building a house.
I had a moment of hesitation when I couldn't remember which it was, fission or fusion and thought it better to err on the side of 'building' instead of 'demolishing' only to get it wrong anyway.
:guilty:

Thanks for the correction Rob!
:thanx:
CannondaleKid

User avatar
nonot
Posts: 1921
Joined: Nov 18 2005 11:52 pm
City, State: Phoenix, AZ

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by nonot » Feb 04 2011 9:30 pm

PageRob wrote:
CannondaleKid wrote:fusion for generating electricity.
Just a quick note: we use fission, not fusion for electricity generation. There are attempts to use fusion (fusing hydrogen together to make helium) for electricity, but none have been successful.
As I was explaining to my students today, the difference between fission and fusion is the difference between demolishing and building a house.
Depends on what you mean by successful. You can achieve fusion relatively easily, even in your own garage. Producing more energy than you put in has not been achieved yet by anything other than stars and dark matter. It's disappointing that we have not tackled the solar collection problem and distribution problem with more scientific interest...transportation is often easier than generation.
http://hikearizona.com/garmin_maps.php

Hike Arizona it is full of sharp, pointy, ankle-twisting, HAZmaster crushing ROCKS!!
Hike Arizona it is full of sharp, pointy, shin-stabbing, skin-shredding plants!
Hike Arizona it is full of striking, biting, stabbing, venomous wildlife!

User avatar
Canyonram
Posts: 230
Joined: Jun 01 2006 9:03 pm
City, State: Payson, AZ

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by Canyonram » Feb 04 2011 11:43 pm

Cannondalekid: I misrepresented your position on the issue of Uranium MIning at Grand Canyon. You did indeed post that "Yes" you were in favor of Uranium Mining at the Grand Canyon. No excuses on my part. I should have double-checked your comments before I made the assertion that you were against Uranium Mining. I should have heeded Tough Boots wise advice and composed my reply, let it simmer, then posted. I have gone back to my original post and entered a retraction and apoplogy there as well. Please except my apology for misrepresenting you on the issue. I was hoping to build my house and instead your opinion was to demolish it.

I'm curious as to the quality of your argument that allowed you to arrive at your position. Feel free to include your personal experiences, work history, education, etc. that assisted you in developing your opinion---I don't see that as impeaching or reducing the quality of your argument provided you label that as your source. PageRob and I have both posted our personal backgrounds and interests to frame the debate. I'm curious as to your particular background and why you have arrived at your position, especially when you confuse fusion and fission. As to 'locking' the thread, I still read your comment "At the risk of offending free-speech advocates... if we could vote on it my vote would be in favor of locking this thread" as a move to 'lock the thread.' Why else would you even be concerned about 'free-speech' advocates or why would you vote??? (No need to answer.)

So far, I have stated my opinion that I am AGAINST Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon. Cannondalekid has posted his opinion "YES" for Uranium Mining. I am not sure where PageRob stands. Tough Boots has not stated in a declarative sentence whether he is FOR or AGAINST. Liz refrained until she has time to consider the issue (although I believe she labeled me a neurotic for insisting that people take a stand). No Not no not post a vote as of yet.

Not much debate. Based on forum member comments, I'd say not much interest. We're deteriorating into another episode of Seinfeld---the show about Nothing---and calling each other out on every single sentence. You say fission, I say fusion, you say tomatoe, I say tomato. And even though only a few have ventured in for the cage match, the few comments have served a purpose for me----it has been practice to hone my talking points and correct my errors. When I take my political activism on this issue away from the forum, I hope to be better prepared to do combat AGAINST URANIUM MINING AT GRAND CANYON and work in defense of the Canyon and the Native Americans who stand to suffer the most with continued uranium mining.

User avatar
Tough_Boots
Posts: 1723
Joined: Mar 28 2008 7:08 pm
City, State: Phoenix, AZ
Contact:

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by Tough_Boots » Feb 05 2011 12:43 am

Canyonram wrote:Tough Boots has not stated in a declarative sentence whether he is FOR or AGAINST.
I am officially against it. I think its a destructive industry run by people who don't care about safety, environmental impact, or cultural sensitivity. The waste created by this industry is reason enough not to support anything they do.
"there is no love where there is no bramble."
--bill callahan

User avatar
azbackpackr
Posts: 8122
Joined: Jan 21 2006 6:46 am
City, State: Flag-summer-Needles-winter

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by azbackpackr » Feb 05 2011 5:38 am

I, too, am concerned about the waste, as I believe I mentioned at least once in this thread. I am also concerned and distrustful about the industry and the government. Our government changes hands quite often, and sometimes we even have presidents, such as George W. who can't even bother to pronounce "nuclear" correctly even after 8 years in office, like a kind of pride in his own ignorance. This is incredibly dangerous given the stakes involved in using nuclear power, I think. Some elected governments will be for less regulation, others will be stricter. Back and forth, back and forth. This is also dangerous, given the stakes. I think nuclear power plants could possibly be set up to be used safely in a perfect world, but not when you KNOW you are going to have governments in the future that come in and get rid of safety regulations, or don't enforce them. Witness Deep Horizon...

I don't think it's particularly neurotic to take a stand on something. I just rebel when people insist I take one on every single issue that comes down the pike. I rebel more against other people's insistence than for or against issues. My own particular problem I suppose. It just always seemed that back in the 70's you had to be for or against everything, and running around waving signs at everything and everyone. I preferred hiking to sign-waving in the street back then. Now it's the internet instead of sign-waving. A lot of sign-wavers were just sheep, following someone. I remember. I used to talk to them. They were "into it" but could not articulately explain why. It was disgusting to me back then, and it is now, when people "take a stand" but can't articulate why they took it.

At least you guys seem fairly articulate on this topic.

But let's keep it polite, folks, and not jab at each other.
There is a point of no return unremarked at the time in most lives. Graham Greene The Comedians
A clean house is a sign of a misspent life.

User avatar
PaleoRob
Posts: 2341
Joined: Apr 03 2006 12:21 pm
City, State: Grand Junction, CO
Contact:

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by PaleoRob » Feb 05 2011 8:10 am

nonot wrote:Depends on what you mean by successful. You can achieve fusion relatively easily, even in your own garage. Producing more energy than you put in has not been achieved yet by anything other than stars and dark matter.
That's exactly what I mean by successful - getting more out than in.
It's disappointing that we have not tackled the solar collection problem and distribution problem with more scientific interest...transportation is often easier than generation.
No kidding. Here we are in Arizona without a single operating commercial solar plant. A state that has pretty much more sunshine than any other. I think that is a shame.
"The only thing we did was wrong was staying in the wilderness to long...the only thing we did was right was the day we started to fight..."
-Old Spiritual
My book, The Marauders on Lulu and Amazon

User avatar
CannondaleKid
Posts: 1251
Joined: May 04 2004 8:39 pm
City, State: Mesa, AZ
Contact:

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by CannondaleKid » Feb 05 2011 12:00 pm

@canyonram Apology accepted.

As far as how I came to my stand about uranium mining, it comes not due to anything specific in relation to nuclear energy, as much as common sense... we have nuclear power plants to generate power, and since they are there, how are we to fuel them if no uranium is mined? Whether I like nuclear or not is immaterial. As long as I am a user of energy and can't produce my own, I have to rely on SRP or whoever to bring the power to my door. If any of us here can say they provide their own power, then great! However, for the rest of us, whether nuclear, hydro-electric, coal or whatever, do we have a choice in how we get it? Hardly.
Try telling SRP oh by the way, for the power you provide me I'll only accept safe, clean and renewable energy whatever that would be.

Oh wait... How about damming the GC completely instead of uranium mining?? Just like in China, there is a valley that thousands of people have lived in it for generations but because more power is needed, it will be flooded.

So if you had only these two choices, which would you choose?
1. Sorry, you have to move your farm somewhere else because we are going to flood this area
2. You can still live here but we will be mining uranium nearby
Yep, you're right, both choices are not what you'd like to hear, but if you need the power, what choice do you have?
azbackpackr wrote:I am also concerned and distrustful about the industry and the government.
I am in absolute agreement! The real problem is not whether we mine uranium not, but can we trust ANY energy generation industry? As long as our government is being run by the 'big business/industrial' puppet masters, I don't trust them at all. Neither the Democrats or GOP are any different when you take the outer wraps off, they both were bought long ago by big business, big energy, big pharma, big oil...
azbackpackr wrote:I think nuclear power plants could possibly be set up to be used safely in a perfect world, but not when you KNOW you are going to have governments in the future that come in and get rid of safety regulations, or don't enforce them. Witness Deep Horizon...
Agreed... and again, whether big energy (nuclear), big oil (Deepwater Horizon) or big whoever, do they have our best interest at heart? Hardly. But as long as humans are human and there continues to be ones overly possessed with a drive to seek more pride and power (power=money) there will always be distrust.

What about solar? What kind of hazardous wastes are generated in the production of the cells?

How about the 'clean' electric cars? Sorry, they aren't really clean... first they still need to get their power from the grid, and until we can all agree on what constitutes clean power, well is it clean? And to produce the new generation batteries, not only are hazardous wastes are generated in the production, but the energy used is significant.

I'm sure there are solid arguments to be made for and against every type of energy generation we currently have, but for those of us on the bottom of the energy delivery chain it's pretty much take what you get or get nothing. So, I take what they provide me. And as little as possible. I've already cut back in every positive way I can, I'm no longer a materialist, (the slippers I have on at the moment are 42 years old and work just fine) I drive an 11 year old car that is reasonable on gas, we compost, almost nothing goes into the trash (most goes into recycle bins) and we have the thermostat no higher than 68 in winter and no lower than 82 in the summer... so we do what we can.
CannondaleKid

User avatar
nonot
Posts: 1921
Joined: Nov 18 2005 11:52 pm
City, State: Phoenix, AZ

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by nonot » Feb 05 2011 1:53 pm

I think that solar cells are more of a local/small power generation tool, most big plants now are solar collectors, which use mirrors to focus sunlight and boil water...cheaper and easier. It has been argued that solar cells don't give reach a break even point for about 30 years based on the process it takes to manufacture them.
http://hikearizona.com/garmin_maps.php

Hike Arizona it is full of sharp, pointy, ankle-twisting, HAZmaster crushing ROCKS!!
Hike Arizona it is full of sharp, pointy, shin-stabbing, skin-shredding plants!
Hike Arizona it is full of striking, biting, stabbing, venomous wildlife!

User avatar
PaleoRob
Posts: 2341
Joined: Apr 03 2006 12:21 pm
City, State: Grand Junction, CO
Contact:

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by PaleoRob » Feb 05 2011 9:24 pm

nonot wrote: It has been argued that solar cells don't give reach a break even point for about 30 years based on the process it takes to manufacture them.
That's true in a pre-tax sense. As the law stands now, the break-even point is somewhere around 10-12 years for residential systems (longer for smaller systems, shorter for larger systems) with tax credits and incentives - at least that was the case in 2009 when I took my solar and wind power class.
"The only thing we did was wrong was staying in the wilderness to long...the only thing we did was right was the day we started to fight..."
-Old Spiritual
My book, The Marauders on Lulu and Amazon

User avatar
JimmyLyding
Posts: 1319
Joined: Feb 16 2007 3:17 pm
City, State: Walnut Creek, CA

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by JimmyLyding » Feb 06 2011 1:50 am

This thread may put the "nude hiking" thread to shame with its longevity by the time it's all said and done. I am most assuredly in favor of nuclear power because the alternatives are far worse for our earth in the long run. However, the most important issue in my mind w/ respect to this is to mine uranium in a responsible manner. Regulating mining primarily based upon a law that was passed when Ulysses S. Grant was President is complete idiocy. I am against all uranium mining (or any other type of mining) until we pass laws that don't place the public's health and safety far below the right of mining companies to profitably pull minerals out of the ground.

I do have some experience with mining. I have visited about every copper mine in the Southwest as a vendor, and they are disgusting, dirty sores upon our Mother Earth. However, we DO need copper, and outsourcing all of its production to countries with less-stringent environmental regulations isn't the answer. We need strong environmental laws to regulate all mining in our country, and we should Bear Down on every other country to do the same. To do any less is a crime against all humanity and all we hold dear. I am wholeheartedly against the Rosemont Mine. I would willingly risk arrest and worse to keep that idiotic mine from being constructed. Going off on a tangent, I can't believe our country is considering allowing a hideous sore of a mine to be constructed by a foreign corporation that has zero experience doing such (as a company), and is dramatically undercapitalized. Who pays for their pumpkinups? Y'all know the answer to that question.

Here are some ideas:
*All interested parties need to stop assigning the worst possible motives to those who disagree. The right has grown fond of accusing the anti-mining folks of wanting to destroy people's livelihoods. The left has become fond of accusing the pro-mining folks of wanting to poison our water. This has to stop because no positive & meaningful dialogue comes from these farcical exchanges. What we have now is the "politics of power." Whichever group wields power does so with impunity for the one-sided benefit of its constituency. There is no compromise. That's why we see endless lawsuits trying to enforce environmental laws in response to political appointees interpreting laws in a very narrow manner that benefits the short-term economic interests of industry. We need to find a way to move forward in a manner that provides the most possible benefit to the most people.

*Recycling in this country is a joke. If you work in a large office building you probably see regular notices from firms asking you to recycle your unused electronics. 2 weeks later a bin at the front door is filled with old laptops and remote controls. Those devices are then stripped of all of the most-valuable components, then the devices are shipped to China, Mexico or wherever where additional valuable components are recycled. The rest of the electronic devices are then left to rot with many harmful things entering our environment. This is a money-driven thing. Economics is not the study of money, but rather of scarcity. Our species has done an abysmal job of developing technologies that allow us to not only financially profit from re-using our waste, but preserve the scarce resources that allow us to exist such as water and air.

How do we accomplish this? The only way I can come up with is for government subsidies in the short-term. I know many on the right will recoil at the notion, but I remind them to remember all of the positive things we enjoy because of such government expenditures as the space program, interstate highway system, and food/drug safety.

*Vladimir Lenin said that quantity has a quality all its own, and he's right in many respects. It's also true that quality has a quantity all its own. Take that as you will.

*People and firms who violate environmental laws need to be pounded like a fly between an anvil and the hammer of Thor. No more trivial fines. No more endless hearings. An example (I'm not advocating this, but merely providing an example) would be allowing oil companies to drill for oil, but if they spill one drop of oil into the environment then all of that firm's assets become the property of the government to be liquidated with extreme discretion going to mitigating the damage. The most likely thing we'd see would be a dramatic reduction in oil spills, and the second-most-likely thing we'd see would be a dramatic improvement in technology to keep such spills to a minimum.

Sorry if I'm a bit rambling, but I'm still keyed-up after getting home from a triple-overtime college basketball game! Thanks!

Post Reply

Return to “Grand Canyon Forum”


cron