HikeArizona.COM

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.

Japan has app. 55 nuclear power plants, all subject to the same earthquake danger that triggered the latest disaster. One damaged plant may not change people's minds regarding nuclear power, but a few more plants going down should. The Chernobyl incident did indeed impact nuclear power plant construction here in the US, virtually bringing new construction to a halt. Now, with a generation distance between that disaster and our ever-growing enegry needs, more consideration is given to nuclear power---including trying to reopen the uranium mining exploitation of the Colorado Plateau including near Grand Canyon.

The US put a halt to developing Yucca Mtn, NV as a storage location for spent uranium rods---after billions were spent. The problems of what to do with this large radioactive waste accumulation created huge logistics problems as to how to safely transport the spent fuel from around the US to the storage facility---do you haul by truck? train? What do you do if there is a accident on a major Interstate? We 'store' the same way the Japanese were attempting to do---on site.

Storage on-sie of the spent fuel rods: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmqPI9GEVHE
Debate and issues that lead to abandoning the Yucca Mtn. project: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/ ... 9696.shtml
Shutdown of the Yucca Mtn. storage project by President Obama: http://www.masslive.com/opinion/index.s ... ation.html
The Japan disaster has actaully renewed interest in proceeding with Yucca Mtn.: http://www.texasinstitute.org/news/texa ... ntain.html

We're really pushing our planet Earth to a breaking point in terms of overpopulation, exploitation of the natural resources, and in industrial nations a runaway lifestyle totally out-of-synch with a sustainable future. The tally in the debit column for nuclear energy exceeds the tally in the profit margin for using it. One way to put a stop to radioactive waste accumulation is to put a stop to Uranium Mining. I believe a small victory and 2 year moratorium on mining around the Canyon was a small but significant step.

"Uranium Mining 101" http://earthworksaction.org/pubs/FS_Ura ... ing101.pdf

New York Times editiorial from March 2011 supporting 20 year moratorium on Uranium Mining/Grand Canyon
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/opini ... .html?_r=1

Still time to voice your opinion and contact your government representatives. Deadline is this Wednesday, May 4.
From Credo.org: "The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering a 20 year ban on mining to protect the Grand Canyon's entire 1-million acre watershed. But there are other proposals on the table, and industry lobbyists are encouraging BLM to open the floodgates for the uranium mining rush. It's essential that we urge the BLM to protect the Grand Canyon. Join in defending the Grand Canyon. Submit a public comment to BLM to protect the Grand Canyon from uranium mining:

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/gra ... &rc=paste1

Did you mean, deadline is this Wed. May 4th?

Thanks for spotting my error on the date. It is May, not March 4 to submit comments.

More on the debate regarding Uranium Mining at the Canyon in the Arizona Daily Sun as of May 15, 2011:

http://azdailysun.com/news/local/articl ... 5bfcf.html

Ban on mining claims near Grand Canyon extended


FLAGSTAFF - Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Monday that he will extend a temporary ban on new uranium mining claims on about 1 million acres surrounding Grand Canyon National Park.

With the park as a backdrop, Salazar also said his agency would complete an environmental review of a plan to withdraw the full 1 million acres from new mining activities for the next 20 years.

The temporary moratorium was set to expire next month.

Interior officials were not prepared to issue a final decision on...

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/ ... z1PriAzVit


Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/ ... z1Pri1dPU5

Good news!

That's not too surprising. For good or ill, the tsunami has ensured that nuclear power will be less popular than smallpox for another half-life of plutonium.

Even with the extended moratorium, there are 11 uranimum mining clains/operations that are 'grandfathered' in under the old 1872 Mining Act that will be able to operate near Grand Canyon.

Editorial in the AZ Daily Sun: http://azdailysun.com/news/opinion/edit ... 699dd.html

Even without the tsunami and Japanese nuclear plant disaster, there is still plenty of opposition to uranium mining and nuclear power in the US and abroad. More people around the world are realizing that nuclear energy is NOT the answer. The environmental cost to mine / mill the ore, make the power plants safe, and then handle the contaminated fuel rod waste products exceed the power production benefits.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43475479/ns ... vironment/

Do a simple Internet Search on 'Uranimum mine contamination' to get an idea of the extent of the problem world-wide. It is not just an issue on the Colorado Plateau and Grand Canyon in particular.

big_load wrote:That's not too surprising. For good or ill, the tsunami has ensured that nuclear power will be less popular than smallpox for another half-life of plutonium.

Which is a real shame, IMHO. When done right, it is far safer and many orders of magnitude cleaner than anything else we have. It might be the only way we can generate any real supply of hydrogen and make it at all profitable, too. Alas, to do it right means $$ and we all know what that means...

jeffmacewen wrote:

big_load wrote:That's not too surprising. For good or ill, the tsunami has ensured that nuclear power will be less popular than smallpox for another half-life of plutonium.

Which is a real shame, IMHO. When done right, it is far safer and many orders of magnitude cleaner than anything else we have. It might be the only way we can generate any real supply of hydrogen and make it at all profitable, too. Alas, to do it right means $$ and we all know what that means...

This is dead on.

The debate on Uranium Mining continues with a move to retract the moratorium on mining:

http://azdailysun.com/news/local/state- ... f7fe7.html

The uranium mining/milling/use/handling of spent fuel rods cannot be made safe. Realize that nuclear power generation is a relatively new method of obtaining energy. The first commercial nuclear power plant in the United States went online in 1958 (the Shippingport nuclear power plant). We've had 50+ years now to see both the benefits and the costs of nuclear energy. The temptation is to focus on the benefits and gloss over the negatives. As much of a problem as any is the human factor---accidents and equipment failures are covered up by the humans in charge who defend their jobs/income/profit and not the population and environment at risk.

There's no safe exposure level. The EPA levels for exposure are 'best-guesses' and not something that has stood the test of time. For that confidence level, we need a few generations to see where the true exposure limits fall. The Pandora's Box of nucelar bombs and nuclear energy has only been open now since WWII---meaning the Baby Boomer generation going forward are the true guinea pigs as to how exposure impacts human health. Unfortunately, that evaluation will be accomplished after the damage.

The moratorium on opening up Uranium Mining has been extended to December . . . a few months over the initial expiration date.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43469098/ns ... -extended/

Story of Elsie Begay and her work to correct the damage done to the Navajo people as a result of uranium mining:

http://azdailysun.com/news/local/state- ... 002e0.html

http://www.fronterasdesk.org/news/2011/ ... jo-indian/

Your lawmakers at work, hoping to open up 1 million acres of land for new uranium claims.

http://www.grandcanyontrust.org/news/20 ... nd-canyon/

GRAND CANYON: Ariz. GOP lawmakers aim to block mining withdrawal
Manuel Quinones, E&E reporter

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

A group of Republican lawmakers is introducing legislation to stop the
Obama administration from blocking new mining claims around the Grand Canyon.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in June announced the Obama administration’s intention to withdraw roughly 1 million acres from new mining claims around the Grand Canyon National Park for 20
years, pending further review.

The GOP’s latest effort to stop the withdrawal comes as the Bureau of Land Management prepares to release a final environmental impact statement on the issue by the end of this month.

The lawmakers — including Arizona Republicans Sen. John McCain, Rep. Jeff Flake and Rep. Trent Franks — are announcing their bill in a press conference this morning.

Flake previously attached a rider to block administration action in the spending bill for Interior and U.S. EPA. Now that the vehicle for government funding has yet to be determined, withdrawal opponents are opting for a new stand-alone bill.

Franks introduced legislation, H.R. 5665, last year to block the withdrawal. That bill received little consideration and it remains in doubt whether a new version can pass the Democratic-controlled Senate.

On the other side of the issue is Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who has legislation pending, H.R. 855, to make the withdrawal permanent. It appears unlikely the Republican-controlled House will take up his bill.

Withdrawal opponents say the administration threatens to take off-line a major source of uranium to power nuclear power plants, hurting job creation in the process. Supporters of a ban on new claims worry about potential pollution of the Colorado River and communities downstream.

In a related move, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the House Natural Resources Committee ranking member, promised to introduce legislation aimed at imposing royalties on the hardrock mining industry and collecting new fees for cleaning up abandoned mines.

The ban on uranium mining around Grand Canyon is coming up for a vote in either late Nov. or December 2011. Really puzzled why some of the politicians are attempting to sabotague the protection even under the notion that it will create jobs. The relatively few employees hired to mine and ship the uranium will come no where near matching the 4.5 million visitors and tourist industry profits to Grand Canyon each year who no doubt will find other locations to visit should even the slightest hint of contamination ever hit the headlines. The real employment will come in third-world countries like Iran that are developing their nuclear arsenal and would make good use of some high grade ore extracted from the Colorado Plateau.

The Center for Biological Diversity has a 'Final Push to Protect Grand Canyon From Uranium Pollution' site here:

http://action.biologicaldiversity.org/p ... n_KEY=6027

You can speak out (either way I suppose). I hope your choice is to protect the Canyon for now and future generations.

Canyonram wrote:The real employment will come in third-world countries like Iran that are developing their nuclear arsenal and would make good use of some high grade ore extracted from the Colorado Plateau.

I have very little knowledge on the subject of mining so I can't really formulate an opinion besides the emotional desire to keep the Grand Canyon safe and pretty, but I'm at a total loss for how it would be that the US would mine high-grade ore and sell it to Iran for them to develop their nuclear program? We won't even sell them used parts to maintain their old passenger aircraft.

Chumley,

Denison Mines is a Canadian-based developer specializing in uranium mining, exploration, etc. with current holdings in the U.S., Canada, Zambia and Mongolia They are the closest to resuming uranium mining around Grand Canyon. Korea holds 15% interest in the company. It would not be the US selling the processed ore---it would be a Canadian company/Korea that would make the decision on who to sell to. No way to know who they will sell to, who will be the buyer. The high-grade ore can pass from 'friendly' hands to a country wishing to develop nuclear weapon capability.

The profits will go outside the US and the environmental effects and cleanup (if that is even possible) would be left to US citizens.

Sounds like you have some pretty good details. Do you have any links to share so I can read more about that myself?