|
|
||
Orange supervisors need to guard residents' safety Date published: 10/2/2003
The issue of uranium in Barboursville looms large because exposure can be deadly. General Shale Products claims no uranium has been identified in the Barboursville Basin. The county acknowledges uranium here. In 1985, before approving General Shale's expansion, the county requested an impact study due to high radioactivity in the Somerset area. So why didn't the current Board of Supervisors request an impact study after being asked? A judge has ruled the existing evidence insufficient to prove the potential presence of uranium that would warrant investigation to ensure public safety. Doesn't he take this seriously? Uranium, having been an issue before, brings me to my point. The real issue is the allegation that the Board of Supervisors "arbitrarily and capriciously" approved a permit for General Shale. Part of the county's job is protecting public health and safety. Seems they dropped the ball. General Shale states "no uranium has been [found]," and the county remains silent. Regarding numerous inaccuracies presented by General Shale to the public and to government agencies, why hasn't the county challenged them? Supervisor Rod Slayton wrote Gov. Mark Warner complaining that state agencies were "putting up roadblocks" and "dragging their feet" on the state permit. He asked Warner to have these agencies move forward promptly. The issue is that the county made a poor decision in 2002, leaving unanswered questions that are pertinent to the health and safety of the public. Lucy Colby Barboursville
1. Be respectful. No personal attacks.
|
|
|||||||||||||
