The battle over Virginia uranium

Evaluating statistical data, much like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

What, then, should be made of a recent consultant's report on uranium mining in Pittsylvania County? It rejects an earlier Virginia Beach-sponsored study that warned of contamination of the city's drinking water supply.

The "technical critique" of the Beach consultant's report was funded by Virginia Uranium, the company seeking clearance to mine a 3,500-acre tract near Chatham in Southside Virginia.

In order to extract the estimated 119 million pounds of uranium at the site - a deposit valued at $10 billion - lawmakers must lift a nearly three-decade-old mining ban. That ban is likely to be the subject of intense interest during

next year's General Assembly session.

Before then, the National Academy of Sciences will release an analysis on whether the mining can be done safely in Virginia's rainy climate. In the meantime, other studies are competing for attention.

Virginia Uranium's recent report took issue with the Beach consultant's conclusion that contaminants could make their way from the mine and into Lake Gaston and eventually to Virginia Beach. The company's report said the city's study was based on flawed assumptions and methodology.

Going further, the company claims the risk of the release of radioactive material from containment into a reservoir that supplies Lake Gaston is "effectively zero," when the Beach study found it to be significant.

In other words, the company's study is one that points out the alleged flaws in another study.

Of course, two can play that game.

Not surprisingly, Beach officials consider their consultant's work to be more reliable than a mining company's. The city - which spent a huge amount to pipe water over from Lake Gaston - officially opposes uranium mining unless it can be scientifically shown that contaminants can be kept out of the city's drinking water.

And so the city paid for a study that specifically addressed the effect uranium mining would have on the city water supply. It came with a $437,000 price tag. The second phase of the study is in the works.

The city's study

concludes that a heavy storm could wash uranium tailings into the city's water source, which - after being piped eastward - mingles with water for Norfolk and Chesapeake.

To illustrate that safeguards aren't always sufficient to prevent a catastrophe, one city official cited the examples of the New Orleans levee failures during 2005's Hurricane Katrina and last year's Gulf of Mexico oil spill after the explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig.

Sorting through all this - for citizens and lawmakers - is made difficult by the competing interests of the parties and the complicated science involved.

The confusion, for now, undoubtedly benefits Virginia Uranium, but the motives are clear.

The city is trying to protect its water supply and the health of its citizens. The company is trying to protect its bottom line.