The Uranium Mining Debate by James Gherardi
Uranium mining has been a central focus of my reporting since I started at WSET nine months ago. In that short time I have taken in a slew of information, opinions and history. I have become invested in reporting the most credible, unbiased news possible on this topic.
One of the major focuses of my uranium reporting is on studies that have been released. There have been numerous sponsored by different groups and agencies, all for one reason or another. But it seems that for all of these different studies that have been released, the governor's group that has been designed to investigate the ramifications mining would have on the area - no real tangible conclusions has been reached.
Time after time, after the release of each new study, a consensus among the experts is made: "We need another study." In my reporting, I have yet to see someone sit down and say this is what we've learned from all of this; here is what we have decided to do. Whether that needs to be a legislator, a scientist, a philanthropist, a business man, I don't know. But eventually, someone will need to come forward, evaluate the wealth of information that has been published and draw a conclusion.
There are those who will argue that the economy here cannot wait any longer. The unemployment rate remains shockingly high and the industries that once thrived here on the Southside are still nowhere to be found. And others will say, the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing that this is too unsafe - the health risks are too great, and this area, though struggling, cannot afford this. Either way, a conclusion will have to be drawn sooner rather than later. And something that is extremely clear it seems, more studies will just produce less conclusions.