Jeff Flake wants to use the Grand Canyon as a Toxic Waste Dump

[kdog]

Originally Posted by AksarbeN

Kdog will this help? It's the link and the source of information that I'm talking about. Let me know you have any issues or problems with it, I've quoted the document and highlighted the information of concern. What part of this don't you understand?

Issues at Operating Uranium Mines and Mills - USA
You may want to read the full story on the link that was provided. These are the highlights quoted from the information that we're talking about.

Don't give me this crap about "what part of this don't you understand", because that's a different link than the one in your post to which I responded. Your previous link showed that the ADEQ and EPA have no problems with Denison.

THIS link that you've provided is to an anti-nuclear activist site called wise-uranium.org, and has no references for their data. They pretend to give references, but they are generic links to the ADEQ and EPA web sites and don't contain the origins of their data. For all I know, that information is taken out of context or maybe even completely fabricated. Again the current FACTS are that the ADEQ and EPA are finding them in compliance. It says so in YOUR previous reference that perhaps you yourself did not read, so don't try to wiggle out of that now.

[kytoaz]

Originally Posted by kdog

Yeah, got a problem with that? Try doing some reading yourself (given that you told me to do the same thing below.)

USATODAY.com - Wind turbines taking toll on birds of prey

Robert Bryce: Windmills Are Killing Our Birds - WSJ.com

Wind Turbines Continue To Kill Birds.


And yes, Solar concentrators use a lot of water. In fact the one proposed outside of Kingman caused a huge controversy because of the amount of water it was going to use. Yes, nukes use a lot of water too, so I don't understand your point.

Moderator cut: reference to deleted comment

interesting read. the numbers were enough to cause concern. but i will also point out as did this article that this is unique to this site and no reason to tag wind power as a non-viable option.

I don't understand your point of trying to tear down any natural power source.

Cloudy Germany a Powerhouse in Solar Energy

instead of making excuses of why natural energy won't work, why not follow germany's lead and make it happen. I understand why coal and oil executives rail against solar and wind power in this country. they stand to lose millions. for the life of me i cannot figure out why the average citizen continues to fall prey to the propaganda.

[roundball]

I read the editorial in the Republic today. If I could find it I would give a link, Is there a a major newspaper with a worse website?

After reading it and useing some google-fu I'm definitely against it. Looks like they are still having problems in the area with contaminated ground water. Not only that, most of the uranium that is mined in AZ is sold overseas! I see no reason to make a few corporations and bankers rich on our backs worth it.

I'm especially pissed with Trent Franks comments. He describes (paraphrasing) the people against it as a bunch of tree hugging anti-American wimps. The Navajo Nation (his district) has banned it because of ongoing health problems and the AZ fish and game has said it is bad for AZ.

[kdog]

Well, there are jobs that go with the industry, as well as taxes, leases from BLM (I'm assuming), etc. And anything that helps the trade imbalance can't be a bad thing. Editorials are just one person's opinion.

As far as my point on alternative energy like solar, wind farms, etc. My points were not that nuclear is better. But rather that ALL forms of energy are costly to the planet. There are no free lunches.

[AksarbeN]

Originally Posted by kdog

Don't give me this crap about "what part of this don't you understand", because that's a different link than the one in your post to which I responded. Your previous link showed that the ADEQ and EPA have no problems with Denison.

THIS link that you've provided is to an anti-nuclear activist site called wise-uranium.org, and has no references for their data. They pretend to give references, but they are generic links to the ADEQ and EPA web sites and don't contain the origins of their data. For all I know, that information is taken out of context or maybe even completely fabricated. Again the current FACTS are that the ADEQ and EPA are finding them in compliance. It says so in YOUR previous reference that perhaps you yourself did not read, so don't try to wiggle out of that now.

This is the post that I provided the link in. http://www.city-data.com/forum/19962098-post19.html

I have been making reference to multiple sources of information and facts. I don’t take things from one source only and expect it to be totally factual, however the combination of all those links (within the thread) are providing enough information and evidence to evaluate the mining operation at Arizona 1 and the Denison mining company located OUT OF THE COUNTRY in Canada. Their interests here in AZ is for “profit”, not in keeping the public wellbeing of those people who live in the “nations southwest region” healthy.

Within the link you questioned there are a number of other valid links providing additional information, I’ve taken a few of them and posted them here for you to review if you care to. What I’ve read seems to continue to support the evidence that the mine had been operating with disregard to public health and safety and without the required knowledge of the government agencies being notified. This is typical of criminal mining types of operation.

Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) - Home Page

Search Results: denison

Search

The above link seems to have more information regarding the subject of this mining operation. I missed visiting it in the other original searches and only noticed it after your post questioned the validity of sources which seems to be disproved when finding multiple sites in agreement.

Do you have anything (links) to support your point of view that this mining operation is something other than what I'm finding on my searches. At this point I assume Flake and McCain are getting some of the profits while they continue to support the mining operation, there maybe a number of others who have vested interest in the same. I don't know, I can't follow the money so it makes me wonder just who is filling their pockets and supporting Denison.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by roundball

I'm especially pissed with Trent Franks comments. He describes (paraphrasing) the people against it as a bunch of tree hugging anti-American wimps. The Navajo Nation (his district) has banned it because of ongoing health problems and the AZ fish and game has said it is bad for AZ.

Maybe you can explain why this type of mining wasn't a big deal during the past 100 years or so ... until recently, that is. Life went on as normal without all this opposition and negativity. The uproar about contaminated water, etc. is exaggeration. Uranium is a natural resource, just like copper, silver, and yes, water. Mining has been going on for as far back as anybody can remember because jobs and resources are needed. Besides, there is no mining at the Grand Canyon itself ... it takes place at least 50 miles away.

I wouldn't necessarily call the people against it "tree huggers" or "anti American" ... however, it does reek of NIMBYism. NIMBYs are against anything & everything associated with business & development ... and for that matter, so are many environmentalists & a good share of Indian tribes. Thanks to them, mining has become limited, there are no new refineries, and industry & jobs have taken a back seat. Enough is enough!

[AksarbeN]

^^ I believe people would not object to “in my backyard” if the companies operated in a safe clean responsible manner. There are some that do and they don’t have issues with being a good neighbor.

[roundball]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

Maybe you can explain why this type of mining wasn't a big deal during the past 100 years or so ... until recently, that is. Life went on as normal without all this opposition and negativity. The uproar about contaminated water, etc. is exaggeration. Uranium is a natural resource, just like copper, silver, and yes, water. Mining has been going on for as far back as anybody can remember because jobs and resources are needed. Besides, there is no mining at the Grand Canyon itself ... it takes place at least 50 miles away.

I'm not against taking the Uranium. They can do it 20' from the Rim for all I care. I'm not against the Uranium. Just the way they extract it.

The whole natural resource argument doesn't work with me. So you wouldn't mind having lead pipes and paint in your house or asbestos insulation? Those are both naturally occurring.