Letters to the Editor for Sunday, September 13, 2009

Mining study’s scope should be broader
Most people are understandably confused about the uranium studies. Will the National Academy of Sciences undertake a uranium technical study funded solely by a mining company? Del. Terry Kilgore, chairman of the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission, doesn’t know. No one knows. We know even less about the uranium socio-economic study.

Click to send

Del. Kilgore has held open the possibility that other organizations (besides Virginia Uranium, Inc.) will contribute money for the technical study, but so far no one has. It’s not clear whether any organization has been solicited to contribute. So far no legislator has offered to ask the legislature for funding to cover even a small portion of the cost. If it’s important to the state to do this study, why are our legislators unwilling to pay for even a token part of it?

Though second in the time sequence, the uranium socioeconomic study is arguably the more important of the two studies. The technical study will address the safety issue by providing legislators with evidence regarding whether uranium mining, milling, and tailings storage are being done safely elsewhere under conditions comparable to those in Virginia. It should also identify knowledge gaps. The socioeconomic study will address the issue of whether uranium mining is something we want in our state. It should provide evidence about how introducing the uranium industry affects the overall health, economic well-being, and quality of life in communities. Perception, as well as science, plays a critical role in whether introducing this industry is a good idea. The state policy decision depends not only on the safety question, but also on the much larger and less tangible question of what life we want for our communities.
KATIE WHITEHEAD
Chatham
Chairwoman, Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force

Public option needed
I support our president, his ideals and hopes for our country. I am in favor of a public option to be included in a health care plan that we need.

It is not right for good, honest, hard-working citizens to have to stand in long lines for hours and hours to get basic health care from doctors and nurses who donated their time and energy as they did recently in Wise County and in California. How heart breaking it must have been to turn many away — this should not happen in our country!

I wonder how many of those citizens who are shouting in the so-called public forums would be willing to give up Medicare and Social Security? Don’t they understand that these are government programs?

I am not concerned about the effect that a government option would have on insurance and pharmaceutical companies. They do quite well at taking care of themselves and will continue to do so.

I have Social Security and Medicare. Recently I have had a very expensive surgery. Medicare and my extended health care plan paid most of the charges. I am very grateful for both of these government-sponsored programs. I believe that we need one more.
FRANCES P. HARRISS
Lynchburg

Just wondering
We witnessed many conservatives following the lead of Republican spokesmen Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin in attacking President Obama for addressing the nation’s school children in order to encourage them to apply themselves to their studies and remain in school.

His critics charged that he had an ulterior motive and that was to indoctrinate school children into socialism. He certainly did not do so and did not attempt to further his legislative agenda.

In 1983, President Ronald Reagan addressed school-age children and touted his tax-cut plans. Recall the “trickle down theory” where the wealthy would receive disproportionate tax cuts and the benefits would “trickle down” to the less affluent? We did not hear any criticism from right-wing sources that Reagan was using that address to further his agenda.

I don’t get why the uproar about President Obama trying to inspire students to study and stay in school. Wait, I believe I finally get it — President Reagan was white!
PATRICK KILLEEN
Monroe