About 45 years ago Smith Mountain Dam was completed.

It would take several more years for Smith Mountain Lake to fill and become the wonderful resource many of us enjoy today.

It is certain that if the Smith Mountain Dam project was proposed today, anti-development organizations would scream about the pending danger, doom, and devastation.

They would warn that building a power plant at Smith Mountain gap could ruin the countryside.

Today with decades of safe operation and clean energy created from that hydroelectric power plant, all but the most wild-eyed radicals share the opinion that Smith Mountain Dam and the lake it created have been a blessing for the area.

Smith Mountain Lake was created because people with vision used science and engineering to harness a natural resource and create positive change.

Today Southside suffers from chronic high unemployment and the loss of traditional economic engines.

As the farming and manufacturing sectors struggle, many blue chip employers are gone.

Today we need to again use technology to utilize our natural and human resources and create core jobs.

Just as hydroelectric power from Smith Mountain Lake has benefited this area for the past 45 years, in the future the same will be said of the clean and safe energy that will come from safe uranium mining at Coles Hill.

Let's hope that anti-development organizations don't drown out the voices of reason.

We should strengthen Southside Virginia by developing new economic engines that are under our feet instead of looking for greener pastures.

John M. A. Donelson

McLean

In my previous post, I pointed to Southside Virginia Against Uranium Mining, where they pointed out that the author of the letter above is Vice President of Marketing and Sales at USEC Inc., the company that enriches uranium in the only U.S. uranium enrichment plant in Paducah, KY. So, now that we know the author's identity, allow me, please, to speak to him and to his letter.

Mr. Donelson, you first compare Smith Mountain Dam to open-pit uranium mining. This comparison is like trying to prove that apples and oranges are one and the same. Smith Mountain Lake is a hydroelectric dam. Open-pit uranium mines are mined for yellowcake. Boaters and fisherman use Smith Mountain Lake. I would like to invite you, Mr. Donelson, to boat and fish at the tailings ponds created for open-pit uranium mines. In fact, I'd like to invite you to live in Chatham during the duration of the mining at Coles Hill.

Secondly, you wrote, "It is certain that if the Smith Mountain Dam project was proposed today, anti-development organizations would scream about the pending danger, doom, and devastation."

Mr. Donelson, you do not need to include the comma after "doom." Grammatically, that comma is incorrect. So is your assumption that people would put up the same fuss about a dam as they would about an open-pit uranium mine. Granted, dams are not good, but open-pit uranium mines are worse.

A dam may not ruin the countryside - in fact, it sometimes enhances the countryside - at the expense of archaeologists, native flora and fauna, and the property owners who must relocate. But, many people enjoy Smith Mountain Lake today, and most of those folks don't even know the history of that lake.

On the other hand, many people may know and remember the history of an uranium mine in their county. Unlike Smith Mountain Lake, where property values keep pace with valued properties nationwide, an open-pit uranium mine (even the suggestion of such a mine) will cause property values to drop and then to become totally worthless. It will take many years after mining is done for people to use that land again. As a campground, perhaps, or for hiking trails, much like the old open pit mines at Uravan, Colorado.

While I abhor dams, I can live with them more so than I can live with open-pit uranium mines. So, Mr. Donelson, be careful about the adjectives. I don't consider myself "wild-eyed" any more than I would consider you as being "insane." But, I do consider you as "snaky, sneaky and downright slick."

The reason I feel that way, Mr. Donelson, is that you use the same ol' same ol' economic "poor Southside" reasoning for uranium mining. I say this, Mr. Donelson, because I have not experienced or known one safe uranium mine created since that mineral began to be mined back in the middle of the twentieth century in the U.S. And, while some Southside residents might say, "At least I died employed," many other voices have spoken out against this mine in the face of unemployment and a poor economy. Are those people "wild-eyed," or are they educated and sensible people who want to preserve their property values and their health?

Why not, instead, tell readers WHY uranium mining at Coles Hill would be so much different than all the other uranium mines created before it? Why don't you tell folks pertinent information, like how that mining will be conducted, the real history behind tailings ponds in all industries and the plans for cleaning up after the mining is done?

I would say, Mr. Donelson, that you are the one who is being unreasonable. You have carried forth a flimsy argument. Additionally, you have not been forthcoming about your real identity or the reason why you wrote this letter. This is the age of transparency, Mr. Donelson, and you are strangely opaque.

But, you have provided one service. You have proven, with this letter and with the revelation of your identity by others, that you and your company have an interest in Virginia's uranium. This should help people in Virginia understand that uranium mined in Virginia will not stay in Virginia. In fact, many people have wondered where the yellowcake was headed to become enriched uranium...you've helped to lift the veil from that sacred altar.

For that, I thank you.