Last week, the Southside Concerned Citizens posted an entry on their blog quoting (in its entirety - not very good etiquette) a Virginia Beach blogger, Eileen Levandoski. Ms. Levandoski - who I've met, very briefly - blogs at VBDems, and had this to say about uranium mining:
Don’t allow Virginia to become a testing ground for a dangerous new experiment in uranium mining! Email/call your Senator especially if he/she serves on the Senate Agricultural, Conservation and Natural Resources Committee who will consider this bill on Monday, Jan. 28th, bright and early at 9:00 AM.
Do please read the whole thing, because she posts no hard facts and evidence to back up her opinion that uranium mining shouldn't be allowed in Virginia. Now, as a blogger and as well as fairly opinionated person, I am all for people expressing their views on issues; it's part of our political system and one of our Constitutional rights.
However, this echo of the talking points made by the anti-uranium folks is hardly productive. Ms. Levandoski quotes from a "commenter at the Daily Press,"(on this article) and refers her readers to a Mr. Rick Kennerly of the Tidewater Climate Action Network.
Wonderful. Lovely! It's great to know people are getting involved... But what are their credentials? What background/education/research and so on do these people have which would lead the average citizen to give weight to these opinions? What studies do they quote? (none) What authoritative scientists to they cite? (none).
Here is part of the definition of this logical fallacy:
The "authority" cited is not an expert on the issue, that is, the person who supplies the opinion is not an expert at all, or is one, but in an unrelated area. The now-classic example is the old television commercial which began: "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV...." The actor then proceeded to recommend a brand of medicine.
While I certainly appreciate everyone's right to their own opinion, if you want to persuade me, I would like some hard, cold facts. What I see of the facts is that the anti-uranium faction is against even a study to discover and consider the most recent scientific fact and resources on the topic of uranium mining! This has me... confuzzled... to say the least.
I do not understand why so many people are so adamantly against finding out the facts, presenting them in a logical and dispassionate manner, and then permitting informed citizens to review the information and make an intelligent, well-briefed choice.
Just yesterday, Jim Bacon - another blogger, and not an authority, either - expressed his opinion and brought up an excellent question:
I don't profess any expertise whatsoever on the environmental impact of uranium mining. Foes contend that uranium mining produces large tailings piles of water-soluble, radioactive waste. Not something you want leaching into the water table. On the other hand, there may well have been significant advances in engineering and technology that allow the uranium to be processed safely. How do we know unless we get someone to study the question?
The few people with whom I have discussed the issue have expressed a deep distrust of the whole process of the study, believing that there are no possible credible and unbiased sources to conduct it.
I can understand that; I don't trust most people in positions of power, and none completely. We are, after all, imperfect and have our own agendas.
It seems to me, however, that the current debate shouldn't focus on whether or not to mine, but rather on who will conduct and oversee the study, and how it will be carried out. As Mr. Bacon states in the comments:
The big issue in my mind is not whether we should study the practicality of uranium mining -- obviously, I think we should -- but ensuring that the commission has sufficient diversity of viewpoints, sufficient expertise and sufficient transparency to have any credibility once the study is complete. It is imperative to assemble a commission that will have credibility among all parties, or the exercise isn't worth conducting at all.
Why can't the whole argument focus on that? Because if the information and science proves - even under hostile scrutiny - that the Coles uranium deposit can be mined safely and profitably (yes, the order of those two is deliberate), then Pittsylvania County would have a desperately needed source of jobs and revenue.
As I keep saying, let's get the FACTS before we make our decisions. Isn't that what rational, intelligent voters ought do?
