Sunday, October 04, 2009
Editorial: No conflict at Tech
A nuclear engineering program at Virginia Tech shouldn't impact its involvement in uranium study.
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
There is ample reason to be disappointed in, and wary of, the planned study of uranium mining safety in Virginia -- most notably the fact that the corporation wanting to do that mining is paying for the study.
But it is wrong to allege, as some critics of the study have, that Virginia Tech has a conflict of interest in its assigned role of managing the money and coordinating with the National Academy of Sciences on the study.
Anne Cockrell, a Danville resident and member of the mining opposition group Southside Concerned Citizens, said Tech's nuclear engineering program poses a conflict of interest.
"Tech's having a domestic supply of uranium ore in its back yard would complement its nuclear engineering program in no small measure," she wrote in a recent e-mail. She repeated the charge in a commentary in the Chatham Star Tribune.
In an interview with the Danville News, Michael Karmis, director of Tech's Center for Coal and Energy Research, called that argument "silly."
Tech is not revitalizing its nuclear engineering program because of the possibility that there may be a local source of uranium available. Rather, the move is in response to a growing demand for nuclear energy and the upcoming retirement of a generation of nuclear engineers.
There are serious reasons to doubt the safety and feasibility of mining and processing uranium in Virginia's damp climate and in a location near population centers.
For appearances' sake, it would have been far better for the state to have paid for the study. The corporation that could mine as much as $10 billion worth of uranium from the Coles Hill site has a clear vested interest in the outcome of the study, and should not be involved.
But no one else stepped up with the money, and the state isn't exactly flush with cash.
The safeguards in place -- including Tech's management of the funds -- seem sufficient to ensure that the study is not biased by its funding.
Certainly, the National Academy of Sciences will not trade its reputation in exchange for a $1.2 million study.
Based on the available evidence, Tech doesn't deserve to have its reputation besmirched, either.
