

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity, (928) 310-6713
Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club, (602) 999-5790
Roger Clark, Grand Canyon Trust, (928) 774-7466
A series of studies
released today by the United States Geological Survey show elevated
uranium levels in wells, springs, and soil in and around uranium
exploration and mining sites within the watershed feeding Grand Canyon
National Park and the Colorado River. The agency conducted the
monitoring to provide information for an environmental impact statement
that is analyzing a proposed 20-year mineral withdrawal that would
protect nearly 1 million acres of public land surrounding Grand Canyon
National Park from future mining activities.
"These
reports demonstrate unequivocally that uranium mining should not
proceed in these environmentally sensitive lands," said Stacey Hamburg
of the Sierra Club's Grand Canyon Chapter. "Contaminated lands and
waters around the Grand Canyon are not what we want for the future of
northern Arizona. Cleaning up contaminated sites should be the
government's first priority."
Elevated uranium
levels consistently exceed natural background levels in and around
exploration and old mining sites - sometimes, as in the case of the
Kanab North mine, by as much as 10 times. Elevated uranium levels were
also detected near the old "Hack" uranium-mine complex, which the
Bureau of Land Management actively promotes on its Web site as a model of good mine reclamation (see video here).
Reclaimed in the 1980s, the mines are located in Hack Canyon, a
tributary to Kanab Creek and the Grand Canyon and Colorado River.
"Uranium
mining has already contaminated lands and waters in and around Grand
Canyon, and today's research confirms that new uranium mining would
threaten aquifers that feed Grand Canyon's springs, the Colorado River,
and nearly 100 species of concern," said Taylor McKinnon of the Center
for Biological Diversity. "These risks aren't worth taking - and
they're risks neither the government nor industry can guarantee
against."
Elevated uranium levels were also
detected at another nearby old mine that the Bureau has said it will
allow to reopen without updating 1980s-era federal environmental
reviews. The first such opening, of Denison Mines' Arizona 1 mine,
provoked a lawsuit in November from conservation groups seeking updated reviews.
Fifteen
springs and five wells exhibited dissolved uranium concentrations
greater than the Environmental Protection Agency maximum for drinking
water; hydrogeologists have warned that new mining could deplete and
pollute water in aquifers and connected springs. Today's report
concludes that: "Uranium mining within the watershed may increase the
amount of radioactive materials and heavy metals in the surface water
and groundwater flowing into Grand Canyon National Park and the
Colorado River, and deep mining activities may increase mobilization of
uranium through the rock strata into the aquifers. In addition, waste
rock and ore from mined areas may be transported away from the mines by
wind and runoff."
"The USGS research confirms that
mining uranium within Grand Canyon watersheds risks permanently
polluting waning water supplies for 25 million people and arid
ecosystems. There are some places where mining should not occur, and
the Grand Canyon is one of them," said Roger Clark of the Grand Canyon
Trust.
Last week the Center for Biological Diversity sued
the U.S. Bureau of Land Management for illegally withholding public
records relating to uranium mines immediately north of Grand Canyon
National Park. The Bureau is withholding the vast majority of eight
linear feet of responsive records despite directives from the Obama
administration requiring the agency to respond to information requests
"promptly and in a spirit of cooperation" and to adopt a "presumption
of disclosure" (see Obama's Freedom of Information Act memo to federal
agencies here).
All of today's reports can be downloaded here: https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5025/
Summary of Research Findings (From USGS)
* The area proposed for withdrawal is estimated to contain about 163,000 tons (about 326 million pounds) of uranium oxide (U3O8),
which is about 12 percent of the estimated total undiscovered uranium
in northern Arizona (1.3 million tons or 2.6 billion pounds). For
comparison, the United States consumes about 27,550 tons (55 million
pounds) of uranium oxide each year in its reactors; most of it comes
from Canada, Australia, and Russia.
*
Soil and sediment samples were analyzed for six sites that
experienced various levels of uranium mining in Kanab Creek area north
of Grand Canyon National Park, including mined and reclaimed sites,
mined sites currently on standby, and sites that were exploratory
drilled but not mined. Uranium and arsenic were two elements
consistently detected in the areas disturbed by mining in values above
natural background levels.
*
Analysis of historical water-quality data for more than 1,000 water
samples from 428 sites in northern Arizona shows that dissolved uranium
concentrations in areas without mining were generally similar to those
with active or reclaimed mines. Sixty-six percent of the sampled sites
showed low dissolved uranium concentrations (less than 5 parts per
billion). Ninety-five percent of the sampled sites had dissolved
uranium levels of less than 30 parts per billion, the Environmental
Protection Agency maximum for drinking water.
*
Samples from 15 springs and 5 wells exhibited dissolved uranium
concentrations greater than the Environmental Protection Agency maximum
for drinking water. These springs and wells are close to or in direct
contact with mineralized ore bodies, and concentration levels are
related to natural processes, mining, or a combination of both factors.
* Almost 100 plants and animals
identified by the State of Arizona or other land managers as species of
concern inhabit the area proposed for withdrawal. Because uranium and
its byproducts such as radon can affect survival, growth, and
reproduction of plants and animals, USGS scientists identified exposure
pathways (for example, ingestion or inhalation) for these species of
concern.
Background
Spikes
in uranium prices have caused thousands of new uranium claims, dozens
of proposed exploration drilling projects, and proposals to reopen old
uranium mines adjacent to the Grand Canyon. Renewed uranium development
threatens to degrade wildlife habitat and industrialize now-wild and
iconic landscapes bordering the park; it also threatens to deplete and
contaminate aquifers that discharge into Grand Canyon National Park and
the Colorado River. The Park Service warns against drinking from
several creeks in the canyon which exhibit elevated uranium levels in
the wake of past uranium mining.
These threats have provoked litigation; legislation; and public protests
and statements of concern and opposition from scientists, city
officials, county officials - including from Coconino County - former
Governor Janet Napolitano, state representatives, the Navajo Nation,
and the Kaibab Paiute, Hopi, Hualapai and Havasupai tribes, the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and the Southern
Nevada Water Authority, among others. Polling conducted by Public
Opinion Strategies shows overwhelming public support for withdrawing
from mineral entry the lands near Grand Canyon; Arizonans support
protecting the Grand Canyon area from uranium mining by a two-to-one
margin.
The Interior Department in July 2009 enacted a land segregation order, now in force, and proposed a 20-year mineral withdrawal,
which is now being analyzed, for one million acres of public land
surrounding Grand Canyon National Park. Both measures prohibit new
mining claims and the exploration and mining of existing claims for
which valid existing rights have not been established. The Bureau of
Land Management has failed to produce any documents demonstrating the
establishment of valid existing rights for the Arizona 1 mine or other
mines around Grand Canyon. The United States Geological Survey's
monitoring results that were released today are to inform the
aforementioned analysis of the proposed mineral withdrawal.
"He’s the Jim Cramer of Iran war predictions," said one critic.
Conservative commentator Dave Rubin, who for months has been a top booster of President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran, was inundated with mockery on Sunday after a viral video exposed months' worth of his failed predictions about the conflict.
The video, which was posted on social media Saturday, begins with Rubin telling viewers to not listen to any of the prognostications being made by critics of the war, which Trump launched in late February without any authorization from Congress.
"I'm pretty good with predictions," Rubin says. "And my prediction here is that everything the media is now going to say about Iran—it's going to close the Strait of Hormuz, and energy prices are going to go crazy—none of this is going to come to pass."
Iran war: greatest hits from the last 12 weeks pic.twitter.com/9pgXyvmsgF
— Dave Rubin Clips II (Parody) - Retired Jan.20/2025 (@DaveClips) May 24, 2026
The video then cuts to Rubin wrongly predicting that gas prices during the conflict "will continue to come down," before switching to claims that Iran lacks the military capability to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed in the face of US military power.
"If the United States wants to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, which it does," says Rubin, "and Donald Trump says we'll escort ships through if we have to, it's going to stay open."
From there, the video shows Rubin hyping of the prospect of Iranian dissident Reza Pahlavi swooping in to take over the country after the war, and then getting fooled by a fake artificial intelligence-generated video of Iranians giving thanks to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for bombing their country.
The video compilation of Rubin's failed predictions drew immediate ridicule from critics.
"He’s the Jim Cramer of Iran war predictions," joked Krystal Ball.
Commentator Adam Mockler wrote of Rubin that "it’s brutal watching him make failed predictions week after week."
Journalist Glenn Greenwald argued that the video should be the last nail in the coffin of whatever credibility Rubin had left.
"Imagine having sat through and listened to all of this Israeli propaganda, which turned out to be (predictably and completely) false," commented Greenwald, "and then thinking there was some value in continuing to listen to this person."
The Bulwark's Tim Miller said that while he knew Rubin was "a smooth-brained hack," he still "couldn’t even fathom how bad these war takes would be."
Political analyst Omar Baddar, meanwhile, said the video should erase any doubt that Rubin is "the dumbest man on the internet."
The Trump administration last week sued Minnesota after it passed a law banning prediction markets from operating in the state.
A Sunday report in The New York Times revealed how the Trump administration is using a key government agency to shut down any efforts to regulate online betting markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket.
According to the Times, the administration has stacked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) with industry insiders who have systematically "mowed down" staffers at the agency who have expressed interest in providing oversight on prediction markets.
Among other things, the report documented how multiple officials at CTFC have been put on leave simply for asking questions about the betting markets' ties to members of President Donald Trump's family or for having past experience enforcing regulations related to cryptocurrencies.
What's more, the Times found that even being an industry insider isn't enough to guarantee good standing in the agency. Brian Quintenz, who was tapped by Trump to lead CTFC last year, saw his nomination withdrawn after he drew the ire of Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss for refusing to support their cryptocurrency exchange's complaint against the agency.
Revelations about industry insiders rolling over regulators at CTFC come as the Trump administration is fighting any attempts by states to regulate prediction markets.
As explained in a Thursday report from CNBC, the Trump administration is "fighting a multi-front battle to stop the state actions and assert its regulatory authority," with CTFC arguing that it is "the only entity that can regulate" betting platforms.
16 different states are engaged in legal proceedings against the platforms, and Minnesota last week passed a law to ban them outright, which immediately drew a lawsuit from the administration.
The new Minnesota law, which is scheduled to take effect in August, bans prediction markets "from hosting, creating or advertising in the state," according to ABC News.
In an interview with ABC, Minnesota state Rep. Emma Greenman (D-63B) said she authored the legislation because she has grown increasingly concerned about young people in the state seeing their finances drained from placing online bets.
"We're seeing studies come out that say [the companies] are targeting 18- to 21-year-olds," said Greenman, "and we are seeing gambling starting younger and younger."
CFTC Chair Michael Selig last month warned states against trying to regulate prediction markets, which he said would "circumvent the clear directive of Congress."
"Our message to Wisconsin is the same as to New York, Arizona, and others," said Selig. "If you interfere with the operation of federal law in regulating financial markets, we will sue you."
"Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury except putting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in charge of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz," said one critic of the war.
President Donald Trump revealed on Saturday that he is mulling a deal that would end his illegal war with Iran, and some hawks within the Republican Party are expressing alarm.
According to a Sunday report in The New York Times, many details of the agreement to end the war remain murky, with the fate of Iran's enriched uranium up in the air. US and Iranian officials have also given contradictory messages about the proposed deal's contents, suggesting there is much work still to be done before any agreement is finalized.
Regardless, three hawkish GOP senators on Saturday raised major concerns about the contents of the deal, warning against accepting any agreement that will leave Iran in a stronger position than before Trump illegally launched a war against it without any authorization from Congress in late February.
"If it is perceived in the region that a deal with Iran allows the regime to survive and become more powerful over time, we will have poured gasoline on the conflicts in Lebanon and Iraq," wrote Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who lobbied Trump to attack Iran repeatedly before the start of the war. "A deal that is perceived to allow Iran to survive and possess the ability to control the [Strait of Hormuz] in the future will put Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Shia militias in Iraq on steroids.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), another longtime Iran hawk, said he was "deeply concerned" about what he's been hearing about the deal and expressed particular worry about Iran getting relief from US sanctions while still maintaining the ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz.
"If the result of all that is to be an Iranian regime—still run by Islamists who chant 'death to America'—now receiving billions of dollars," Cruz wrote, "being able to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake."
Sen. Roger Wicker (D-Miss.) was even blunter in his condemnation of the reported agreement.
"The rumored 60-day ceasefire—with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith—would be a disaster," Wicker wrote. "Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught!"
Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national security adviser for President Barack Obama, challenged Wicker's claims that Trump's illegal war had achieved anything of value.
"Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury," Rhodes wrote, "except putting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in charge of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz."
Rhodes' criticism was echoed by Stephen Wertheim, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who wrote that "everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury is already for naught."
Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, accused the Iran hawks of being delusional for thinking further bombing would force Iran to capitulate.
"DC's Iran hawks got two wars, nearly every conceivable sanction designation, a blockade, threw a wrench in global economy," Vaez wrote, "and will still claim that just a little more pressure and a touch more bombing will magically yield the concessions they still won't be satisfied with."