The article “A Big Uranium Deposit, and a Big Debate on Mining It” chronicles the divisive controversy amongst the residents of Chatham, Virginia over uranium mining on Coles Hill estate. This estate is a 1, 200 acre family farm which has been passed down through generations. The current owner of the farm, Walter Coles – age 73, formed Virginia Uranium in 2007 whose assets include the 2300 acres surrounding his family farm. The proponents of mining point to the fact that it could create 1,000 jobs and have a net economic impact of $135 million per year. Opponents, mainly environmentalists and farmers, fear that the mining will contaminate the water supply and negatively affect the reputation of farm products. Currently mining is prohibited by a moratorium that was enacted in 1982. The uranium – a fuel for reactors – was first discovered in the 1950s and was poised for mining in the late 1970s through a joint venture between Marline Uranium Corporation and Union Carbide. The mining never occurred because after the explosion of 3-Mile Island, the popularity of nuclear energy plummeted. At that time, the mineral rights reverted to the Coles family. Interest in mining uranium as a fuel has been rekindled as the price of uranium has soared recently. The United States currently has only nine operating uranium mines. These mines supply 90 percent of the yellowcake for the nation’s 104 nuclear reactors. Experts believe that the mine at Coles Hill, if explored, could yield two million pounds of uranium annually over 35 years. Obviously there is a big economic incentive for this mining to occur. The critics of mining point to the dangers of the milling that produces the yellowcake. When mining the uranium, a radioactive debris known as tailings is produced. This debris is normally stored near the mining site. The environmentalists are worried that these tailings will eventually seep into the local water supplies and contaminate drinking water. Even more severe – the Coles Hill watershed eventually drains into the drinking water supply for coastal cities. This debate is sure to be a controversial issue over the following year in the Virginia State legislature as this issue has both state and national ramifications over energy security, nuclear power and the environment.
While the economic benefits in an ailing economy are compelling factors in mining the Uranium, they have to be measured against the stigma associated with mining and the fears of environmental and safety disasters. This issue has been extremely divisive in the town of Chatham and has spread to surrounding towns. For instance, Virginia Beach specifically conducted a study to see what impact the mining could have on its town, and it concluded that a “catastrophic storm or flood could result in the contamination of its water”. The Virginia Uranium Company has refuted these results and states that the study is based on flawed assumptions. The VU Company conducted its own study, paying the National Academy approximately $1.4 million, not to make recommendations but to provide a larger picture about the implications of mining for the state of Virginia. Clearly for any mining to occur both the State and the Federal government would have to take action. The State would have to get rid of the current moratorium on mining and establish a regulatory oversight. The Federal government would also have to establish a “regulatory framework” and provide oversight.
I felt the author provided an impartial detailing of the conflict between the proponents of mining in Chatham, Virginia and its critics. However, I was disappointed that he did not provide a more specific time frame for resolution, nor a way that other mining communities had handled similar conflicts, nor any creative means to resolve this debate. The author adeptly incorporated quotes from various towns members as well as Mr. Cole himself, which greatly enhanced the validity of the article. Overall, I felt this article was exceedingly informative and I am glad I chose to read it.
Citation:
Emery, Theo. "A Big Uranium Deposit, and a Big Debate on MIning It." The New York Times. Web. 2 Dec. 2011.
Brian Forst
December 2, 2011
AP Biology
Brian Forst’s review of “A Big Uranium Deposit, and a Big Debate on Mining It” was thorough and provided insight into the complications faced by both proponents and opponents of this mine. He descriptively and methodically outlined the arguments and counter-arguments for both sides, meaning the only bias present was whatever would be found in the original article. Taking into account both sides of the debate allows the reader to justly establish an opinion on the matter. Brian also did a good job exploring the possible implications and repercussions should this plan ever be enacted. Finally, Brian’s critique of the actual article also provided praise and constructive criticism. He noted the author’s uses of quotes throughout the reading and how an impartial detailing of the debate was given, but also mentioned the lack of information, specifically the time frame for a motion to be determined.
ReplyDeleteWhile Brian did an excellent job in reviewing the article, there are a few points that could be changed or added. He mentions the author of this commentary extensively used quotes throughout his writing, but Brian fails to incorporate quotes himself. The one quote, while nice to have, did not do justice for his review as it changed the subject from uranium contaminating water to natural disasters contaminating the water supply. Other than this, there were just a few grammatical errors that could be fixed.
There were many points in this article I found interesting, though one particularly stood out. It seems, from Brian’s review, the chief interest in mining the uranium is for economic benefit, rather than as another supply for uranium. Brian mentions there are several other uranium deposits that sufficiently support our nuclear energy plants, so this venture seems more of a capitalistic goal.
Never to disappoint, Master Brian C. Forst dexterously outlined “A Big Uranium Deposit, and a Big Debate on Mining It.” Master Forst’s review was assiduous in detailing the main aspects of his article. Firstly, Forst meticulously outlined the arguments surrounding the uranium deposit, providing both sides of the arguments. This allows the reader to establish an educated opinion on the topic. Secondly, Master Forst himself provided an enthralling critique of the article that interests the reader and allows for the reader to get the opinion of Forst before forming their own opinion. Finally, Forst begins his review by immediately jumping into what the article is about. This strategic move executed by a true review-writing veteran allows for the reader to be engaged right away and want to peruse further.
ReplyDeleteWhile I found Master Forst’s review to be exceedingly informative and clear, there were a few areas of it that could be improved. Firstly, there were a few commas that were misused throughout the article, but fortunately that is a minor problem that can be easily fixed. Secondly, Forst did not draw as many quotes directly from the article and included them in his review as he could have to further improve his review.
One particular fact I found extremely interesting was learning about the negative consequences of uranium mining, such as contamination of water supply. I found Brian Forst’s review to be very captivating and informative.
This review is just one beautiful example of why Master Brian Codd Forst always brings something to the table that everyone wants a bite of.
Brian did a great job in his review on “A Big Uranium Deposit and a Big Debate on Mining It,” by Theo Jones. The article discusses the controversy over uranium, detailing its potential economic benefit and environmental issues. While the entire review was good, several components of this review made it extra special. Firstly, Brian did a particularly good job setting up the context of the controversy. He thoroughly explained when mining was first used and how its been since. Secondly, Brian did really great including specific details. He cited exact numbers and percents in relating to this important issue. Finally, Brian did a good job simplifying the arguments of both sides. It seems that these issues could get rather complicated, but Brian made it easier to understand the concerns of the miners and the environmentalists.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Brian’s review was excellent, there were a few things that could have been improved upon. Firstly, Brian could have explained a little bit about how this mining is done and how that relates to its potential, environmental concern. I know that the specifics techniques and technologies must be rather complicated and difficult to explain, but a general overview would help the reader establish a mental picture of what was really going one. Brian could have also elaborated a little bit on why interest in mining uranium has recently soared. He says that its because prices have “soared recenty,” but he never explains why that is.
This article was very, very interesting. I knew there were similar controversies about oil fracking but never before had I heard of uranium mining. This is obviously a hot topic and it will be interesting to see what type of legislature is passed in response.
Brian did an excellent job with his review of “A Big Uranium Deposit, and a Big Debate on Mining It.” It was extremely thorough, well written, and easy to comprehend. One of the really great things that he did was explain both sides of the arguments concerning the issue in their entirety. This allowed us to better understand the problem at hand, and why it causes such controversy. Furthermore, Brian critiqued the article in a way that was extremely interesting and insightful to the reader. The last thing that Brian did that I especially appreciated, was give a very thorough amount of background information, to set the stage for the controversy at hand. This allowed us to better understand why the controversy arose in the first place. Although Brian’s review was excellent, there was still some room for improvement. For example, he could have spoken a bit about the more specific details of the mining process, thereby giving the readers a more detailed picture of the event. The second thing that could have been done better, would be to explain why all of a sudden, uranium has been in such high demand, and why the prices have increased so greatly. Overall however, Brian did an extremely great job with his review, and I found it immensely interesting. I knew that uranium was becoming an exceedingly important resource in today’s world, but I have not often heard of such large controversies concerning it and it was extremely interesting to me to read about it.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, Swashbuckling Skipper Brian delivered the goods one this review. Swashbuckling Skipper Brian was quite impressive in a number of ways. Swashbuckling Skipper Brian's historical account of uranium mining was quite detailed and well structured. It recounted the history from its origins and later times. Also, Swashbuckling Skipper Brian explained both sides of the issue well, and allowed the reader to understand the issue, and make their own decision about the issue. Lastly, the critique of the article itself was well-written, as it provided both details of the author's successes and failures.
ReplyDeleteOne thing Swashbuckling Skipper Brian did not do so well was explain the techniques involved in mining. As a reader, a general overview, though not the detailed steps, might be a helpful piece of background. Also, to give the review more of a feeling of the article, Swashbuckling Skipper Brian might have wanted to draw more quotes and expert opinions cited in the article.
I never even knew that such an issue existed, but it is very interesting. It does make sense, however, after reading Swashbuckling Skipper Brian's review, why it is such a hot-button topic