EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- After Boston, Eyes-Wide Open Hope?
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free
Popular content
Today's Top News
North Dakota Wary of Renewed Uranium Interest
BELFIELD, N.D. - Geiger counters were a hot item in this small town a half century ago. Nearly every business, including the pool hall, sold the instruments to wannabe uranium prospectors.
"People weren't worried about it then because they had no idea what it was," said Barbara Thompson, a Belfield resident for nearly 60 years. "Now we know what it is and what's going on."
What's going on is a renewed interest in uranium exploration in the West. Worldwide demand for nuclear power pushed the price of uranium from roughly $7 a pound in 2002 to about $135 by midsummer. It dropped to around $90 in late August.
North Dakota state geologist Ed Murphy said his office is beginning to field inquiries from mining companies interested in staking new claims - the first since the state's uranium mines shut down in the late 1960s.
"We've got a lot of people looking," he said.
Many locals wish the radioactive element had never been found in their backyards. They lament the environmental damage caused by the unregulated uranium mines and fret about lingering threats to their health.
Some accused the mines of causing livestock to glow and humans to die of cancer. Health officials have said they found no evidence of either.
An industry representative agrees that uranium mining companies are grappling with their past.
"There are legacy issues," said Jon Indall, attorney for Uranium Producers of America, a trade group that represents more than a dozen companies.
"We're willing to work with states and everybody else to make sure it's done right this time," he said. "We feel it can be done in a safe manner."
Cory Smith, 36, who ranches near Belfield, said he was approached in early August by a speculator wanting to lease rights for uranium exploration.
"I wouldn't take a million dollars," he said.
Both of his grandfathers, who had uranium mines named for them, died of cancer at a young age, Smith said. Another rancher in the area, who had a mine named for him, also died young of cancer, he said.
No studies have been done on the number of people in the area who died of cancer, said Dave Glatt, a state Health Department official. The region's sparse population - Belfield has only about 880 residents - renders any attempt to link cancer to uranium mining statistically inaccurate, he added.
Federal Department of Energy studies determined "that the health risk was low related to those sites," Glatt said.
Uranium was mined from at least nine sites in southwestern North Dakota. The exact number is unknown because of poor record-keeping by the state and by mining companies, Murphy said.
Mining companies burned lignite, often called brown coal, to reach the uranium within it, Murphy said. Companies used old tires or diesel fuel to ignite the open pits. The uranium-laden ash was then shipped to Utah, Colorado or South Dakota to be processed further, he said.
Uranium mining nationwide predated federal regulations. North Dakota adopted regulations in 1968, a year after uranium mining stopped in the state, Murphy said.
Lesley Fritz, 92, said he's proof that the mines did not cause cancer in everyone who lived near them. The Fritz Mine near Belfield bears his name. However, the mines did have an affect on local cattle during the 1960s, he said.
"You could see a different tinge to their hair color," Fritz said.
Stan Soderstrom's late father, Stanley, said in a newspaper article in the early 1970s that his sheep "glowed a blue hue" and he suspected uranium mining was the cause.
"I believe it caused a lot of health problems but I've never been satisfied with the answers," Stan Soderstrom said. "A lot of people are still complaining about the long-term effects."
All but one of the known uranium mine sites in North Dakota have been cleaned up, said Jim Deutsch, who heads the state's Public Service Commission's reclamation division.
"We didn't get access from the landowner to go in and reclaim it," he said of the remaining site.
A total of 460 acres was reclaimed, at a cost of $3.2 million, he said. The work was financed by a federal abandoned mine reclamation fund, supported by a tax that coal companies pay.
North Dakota's mines produced about 592,000 pounds of uranium oxide while they were in operation between 1962 and 1967, Murphy said. New mines probably would produce a greater amount, he said.
Any new mining would involve a process that uses chemicals and water to leach out uranium and pump it to the surface. None of the mines would become burning pits - a process Murphy calls "an environmental disaster."
© 2007 The Associated Press
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

24 Comments so far
Show AllA type of nuclear/electirc reactor that should have a future as a lesser of evils is the thorium-based reactor. The waste products are less difficult to deal with having shorter half-lifes. However, this system does not produce plutonium that can be made into weapons which is why this process has been rejected in most situations. Functioning thorium reactors have been made. This is not science fiction. Einstein was in favor of thorium reactors for a variety of reasons. Thorium is also much more common and cheaper than uranium.
India has one up an running:
http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/aug/25nuke.htm
Leaving the choice of reactors up to Cheney's mind is a big mistake. He was largely responsible for the massive use of depleted uranium weapons in Gulf War I, which was followed by even more use in Afghanistan and Iraq. DU projectiles are essentially radioactive waste from plutonium reactors made into projectiles that can affect both sides in warfare as well as civilians for billions of years after the conflict has ended. Actually, calling DU "depleted" is very misleading as once the projectile impacts and burns it becomes more dangerous than it was as a nuclear waste and becomes part of the environment, soil, water, air, with no controls or methods of effective clean-up. Ask Doug Rokke.
The situation is completely insane as they are using radioactive weapons in a "war" (actually war crimes) to trying to steal global warming fossil fuels ! It would be interesting to know how many gallons of fuel are being wasted by the military on war and preparation for war as well as how much pollution they are creating via such "war" ?
Imagine what coud be done creating clean(er) alternative energy projects with the $2 Trillion they have already blown in Iraq/Afghanistan ?
Dick Cheney's secret energy policy drafted and the Bush Administration recently passed legislation to finance and subsidize new nuclear power plant construction and operation. With that victory, the nuclear industry is in the midst of a huge PR campaign to convince voters and politicians that nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gases and is therefore THE "solution" to climate change. All of the 2008 Republican presidential candidates and some of the Democrats including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have endorsed this "solution".
REALITY: Uranium mining, processing, transportation, and waste disposal create lots of greenhouse gases, in addition to presenting serious cancer risk! The construction of nuclear power plants also creates lots of greenhouse gas.
Don't vote for anybody that supports nuclear power.
Small windmills and photovoltaics on millions of roofs all connected to a micro-regulated grid, together with methane generators, wave power and other forms of alternative energy could give us decentralized power and energy independence. Corporations want big centralized power nukes, huge windmill farms, giant dams, big corn ethanol, big coal, big oil, etc. to make us energy dependent so they can fix prices.
Wind won.
Wind better.
Being from North Dakota, we are not wary of nuclear at all and wish the mining would start again. While mining, we wish we could get a nuclear plant started. Beats burning all the coal and the co2 emissions that go along with it.
We are building wind farms, but they are only a stop gap method as the wind, while it blows quit a bit, doesn't blow 24/7 and people seem to like lights 24/7.
Good luck
You stupid!
Very stupid!
Wind/Solar
WmC smart!
It's not the difference in electrical cost of nuclear, versus wind /solar that matters Bill, what matters is the cost of nuclear waste.
It is absolutely 'impossible' to safely store deadly nuclear waste for thousands of years. The proof of that has been well established. Every nation in the world that has atomic power plants will HAVE to store millions of tons of nuclear waste forever, long long after uranium ores have been mined out and every nuclear plant has been shut down. What will the storage and maintenance cost of that be Billy? BTW. You didn't figure those current storage costs in your first computation.
What will the cost of a disasterous nuclear power plant accident be, one that forever ruins a land area the size of New York or California or larger? You cannot figue those costs Bill, the numbers would be too high to compute. How deadly is solar/wind power for life and our enviroment? What is the cost of dangerous waste storage for solar/wind power?
For great information about the dangers of nuclear power, read today's Common Dreams article written by Harvey Wasserman, [The Genius Doctor Who Diagnosed Nuke Power's Deadly Disease.] You don't have to read it Billy, you already know.
Billy, you did not respond to the cost of storing nuclear waste. How many billions of our tax dollars is taken to store that deadly junk? If humanity is still living on this little planet in another billion years or longer, they will have to safely maintain all of the nuclear waste that was ever produced by man, including that from todays waste. Of course that isn't likely is it? We have not been able to safely store it for 60 years but we are paying through the nose to try.
You certainly do make it sound easy there Bill, and I have only a tiny bit of knowledge on the issue, except for the insane DU ammunition problem. Yucca mountain, where there are several earthquake faults within a 20 mile radius and the fact that there have been numerous spills of radioactive waste over the years and at least two very close calls, where nuclear plants came within minutes of a full blown meltdown here in the United States. Someone is paying to store the waste and that figure in not ever figured in the equation of nuclear versus wind/solar. Thanks for the info too.