Montrose - Daily Press

This is my response to Energy Fuels CEO George Glasier and Stephen Antony, which was published in the Sept. 27 edition of the Daily Press.

• 1. Regarding the levels of radioactivity in the Whirlwind mine in August 2008 that I measured with a geiger counter at the mine. I did not state that the mine violated any standards. Nor did I state that any workers were blasting any uranium (although they were present they weren’t mining).

I was attempting to grasp the health hazards within that mine that is, to the best of my knowledge, as stated in the September 12 article, within full compliance with the law. In fact that is the point. Compliance does not mean that health risks are not there. They are. Radon seemed to be covered pretty well at Whirlwind.

Advertisement

The context of those readings is that ionizing radiation concentrations – gamma and beta ray exposure – are high for a worker in that mine who is preparing to blast and then actually blasting and removing the ore from veins of uranium I measured veins with average concentrations that they must work with (.2% uranium is the concentration that Energy Fuels wishes to average) is high. Some were much higher, lots of rock was lower when I put a geiger counter to it. The readings were taken about a foot away and the authors are correct that levels drop rapidly – although they are still substantial – beyond two feet.

I stated that the readings taken showed that a worker would exceed safe exposure levels that were defined by NIOSH, who is a scientific assessment body for the U.S. government. NIOSH does not enforce regulations although they attempt to understand how regulation can and do impact workers in any industry. I discussed the time that workers spent working these veins with Mr. Glasier and with several NIOSH scientists and they understood the conditions (it was being mucked out at the time and prepared for mining).

So that observation remains. I will add to Mr. Glasier’s credit he has been helpful and gracious in access to staff, written information and to facilities.  But the observation that Mr. Glasier and Mr. Anthony made was not true.

• 2. Regarding the health studies discussed in that same article:  I pointed out that both Frank Filas of EF in a recent submission to BOCC and I could derive different conclusions from both Monticello, Utah and  New Mexico mill, mine worker and resident studies.

Those studies should concern readers on health impacts to workers. They are nightmarishly complex studies that do not reflect individual worker suffering, this will eternally be the problem due to the stringency of epidemiological medical protocols.

My explicit point in the September 12 piece:  if you want to cherrypick your sentences, you will draw your own conclusions.

• 3. Finally, the EF execs are correct in pointing out that the past was aggregiously worse than the present hopefully will be, and George, may you not build the Cotter mill. But the uncertainties for the future cannot be dismissed. That’s been the essence of much of our coverage in the Daily Press.  

If you were a bank, I hope you would call this attitude skeptical due diligence.

Comments