For readers whose knowledge of environmental issues is limited, this is particularly informative and compelling. There is no attempt to balance the author's views about what is happening, but the argument that is made is substantiated with a great deal of evidence and is convincing.

While there is some great contextual information here, the essay is very one-sided, and gives no space to arguments from the other side in any kind of fair way. Moreover, much of what is asserted is not backed up with evidence of any kind. It's unfortunate, because his discussion of the effects of mining, for example, are interesting, important, and desired in the public debate about this issue.

This is one-sided, bringing in no 3rd party viewpoints. But it is well linked to evidence. For many people this will be quite informative and interesting to read too.

If we can learn all we need by lookiing back, this is a good story. If you believe that we can learn from our mistakes, this is not a good story. All of these examples come from the past. The only part of this story that occurs today is using water to get the uranium out. Right or wrong nuclear fuel is likely to to be used. Rather than justed talking about why we should not use it, perhaps we should be working to make sure it will work better and safer.

Timely story with the presidential candiates discussing alternative energy sources including nuclear. McCain this last week proposed 45 new nuclear power plants as an alternative energy source. Informative to read about the subsidies planned for nuclear power and one wonders why the proposed $500 Billion subsidies is not going to solar or wind or some other non lethal energy source. The potential environmental impact of uranium is not only from the plant, and from the disposal of spent material but also the immediate and devastating impact to the people who live in the areas of the mines. The Los Angeles Times did an excellent powerful special series Fall 2007 on the impact of uranium mining on the Navajos called Blighted ... More »

A one-sided argument, but as a Colorado native I’ve never yet met any intelligent counter-arguments. To flatlanders, the West has always a place to grab the goodies–gold, silver, lead, coal, molybdenum, uranium, etc. The process is always the same: rape the land, clear out in the dead of night, leave the abandoned messes for taxpayers to clean up. Tourists see many piles of yellow rock tumbled down mountainsides, not realizing those are tailings from long-abandoned mines; soil so sterile nothing grows in it for centuries. Molybdenum and uranium mining are even worse: entire mountains destroyed–waste filling deep valleys. That's why Westerners give Bush an F- for environment.

Chip Ward has a conservationist mindset and the article reflects that. What is missing is support for arguements and sources. If what he writes is accurate, where is the Main Stream Media?

If you want a glimpse of the difference between MSM coverage and that of an independent blog, compare this detailed article with the little page and a half of infotainment that Time just offered on the same topic. Nothing in the Time piece about the immediate environmental damage much less the long-term threat: U-238 has a 4.5 billion-year half-life! Oops! But not to worry, Senators Warner and Lie-bermann are trying to pass a bill to provide Big Nuke with 544 BILLION in subsidies. Surely that'll guarantee our safety. All Americans, especially those in the West, should know about this.