Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mining Concerns Take Precedence Over a Valuable Natural Resource

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pruitt
    replied
    From what I have read over the years, Copper and Gold mining uses toxic solutions to leach the minerals out of the ore. These were not a closed operations where the Toxic solutions could be reused over and over. Storage of the toxic solutions is where the problems come in. Another issue with me is the mining companies want fresh water to start making the solutions.

    Fracking involves pumping water into a formation but then what do you do with the now toxic salty water? West Texas has few options and has scarce water resources. Injection wells in Pennsylvania seems to be causing earthquakes.

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • Bow
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    For most people, that's a no discernable difference. For the gourmet or connoisseur it might make a difference. But, for the bulk of buyers it's going to be price first. No difference with beef or chicken. Most people simply won't notice.
    I also didn't say that wild caught should end, only that farm raised should be increased.
    The fish "farms" I have seen on the West Coast (Brit Columbia) were anything but pristine but then again most of their product was shipped to the Japanese who are in the process of killing every living thing in the ocean from whales to minnows....

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    And what if it does and the salmon are destroyed? They cannot be brought back.

    And now we have this proposed by the Trump administration. I guess that Trump has no time not only for the environment, but for animals in general.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by marktwain View Post

    research study:https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...45653513011600

    copper in minute concentrations impairs salmon sensivity
    Except copper is rarely found in it's metal form in nature. It is almost always, if not always, secondary or tertiary weathered and Copper Oxide in the form of Malachite or Azurite



    The green is malachite, the blue azurite. Neither will readily dissolve in water as their molecules are stable.

    Or as copper sulfates or sulfides:



    Today, the normal process to extract copper from these ores is using a sulphuric acid solution to dissolve the copper oxide into copper sulphates that can then be plated out into copper using electrolytic action. This consumes far less energy than smelting and is also far, far less polluting.

    https://superfund.arizona.edu/learni...per/processing

    Gold on the other hand doesn't readily form oxides and is instead extracted as a metal, although it often contains impurities like silver.

    So, there is little or no threat that copper will enter the watershed or effect the salmon population.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by marktwain View Post

    research study:https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...45653513011600

    copper in minute concentrations impairs salmon sensivity
    No doubt copper will do that but how does it apply to this thread? Are they dumping copper in the streams?

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post

    You figured wrong again. I asked a simple question regarding due diligence. Whenever the MSM only gives unnamed sources as sources....the validity of the story needs to be called into question.

    If someone is offended because I question CNN's unnamed 'facts'.....there is nothing that I can do about it.
    research study:https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...45653513011600

    copper in minute concentrations impairs salmon sensivity

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post
    No kidding. But going for the money-maker up front to the ruin of the other that cannot be recovered is wrong.
    That is a complete proof of a negative / argument from ignorance. There is no knowing what the outcome will be if the mine is opened. Nothing could change with the salmon population. Or, it might have a significant impact.
    Given that this mine will take years to open and then decades to finish operations, I think the speed at which it will be doing things is manageable in terms of observation and if it looks like it will impact the salmon, then the operation can be halted or modified to prevent that from happening. I think that's a much more reasonable set of actions than saying NO! It might harm the salmon population...

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    No kidding. But going for the money-maker up front to the ruin of the other that cannot be recovered is wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    If your support is for the mining over the salmon, then it appears that you support monetary gain over preserving a natural resource. Is that true?
    My support is for both. Not one OR the other. Both salmon and gold and copper are natural resources. You are mistaken if you think only salmon is. My view is that both can exist without disturbing the other.
    As I pointed out, those objecting to the mine are doing so on two primary reasons:

    1. That there is a possibility that the mine could affect the salmon population. They have no proof of that, and can't even give a measurable outcome because this is proof of a negative.

    2. That the mine will pollute because mines operated in the 50's and 60's polluted. Of course, that's before the EPA existed and there were laws and rules about pollution not to mention that the mining industry has gotten much better at its job with new technologies and methodologies.

    But, for the environmental Left, facts never stand in the way of what they want. In fact, outright lies are often what they produce to justify their positions and actions. I presented Fukushima as one proof of that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    For most people, that's a no discernable difference. For the gourmet or connoisseur it might make a difference. But, for the bulk of buyers it's going to be price first. No difference with beef or chicken. Most people simply won't notice.
    I also didn't say that wild caught should end, only that farm raised should be increased.
    If your support is for the mining over the salmon, then it appears that you support monetary gain over preserving a natural resource. Is that true?

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Bow View Post

    "Farmed fish" are no differant than "Wild" salmon!!!!..... Sir you talk a bunch of BS and have never tasted "real" salmon.......Fish farms hould be banned.....I lived on the West Coast of Canada for many years and have tasted "farm fish" Ugh!!!. and "real " fish"...you sir tdont know what you are talking about....Guess you have your pantry filled with imported Norweigian salmon.......
    For most people, that's a no discernable difference. For the gourmet or connoisseur it might make a difference. But, for the bulk of buyers it's going to be price first. No difference with beef or chicken. Most people simply won't notice.
    I also didn't say that wild caught should end, only that farm raised should be increased.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bow
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    Gold and copper are natural resources too. And, it wouldn't result in the "...
    destruction of a natural resource..." in any case. Worst case is a reduction in that resource. As far as I'm concerned, we should be increasing the amount of farmed fish anyway in preference to wild caught. It is far more efficient and there is no discernable difference in the nutritional value of the two.
    "Farmed fish" are no differant than "Wild" salmon!!!!..... Sir you talk a bunch of BS and have never tasted "real" salmon.......Fish farms hould be banned.....I lived on the West Coast of Canada for many years and have tasted "farm fish" Ugh!!!. and "real " fish"...you sir tdont know what you are talking about....Guess you have your pantry filled with imported Norweigian salmon.......

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    So, as Johnson himself admits:

    He testified that during his work, he had two accidents in which he was soaked with the product. The first accident happened in 2012
    Sounds to me like he mishandled the product and got a gazillion (that's numerical hyperbole if you didn't recognize it) times the allowable exposure to the product he should have. I'd question if he was handling it correctly or followed safety instructions and used proper equipment.
    Did his employer (the article makes it sound like he used this at his job) provide an MSDS? Did he read it and follow it?
    I think the jury erred in its decision (of course, the venue was San Francisco so there's a pretty good chance the jury was tainted with idiots), and the amount will likely be seriously reduced on appeal (it usually is) if not overturned completely.

    Eating a full horse is physically impossible, what stopped him drinking a glass of a 'harmless' substance?
    Drinking a hundred, or thousand times the recommended maximum ingested amount is the same. Drinking too much water can be toxic to a person. Some studies suggest water can be carcinogenic too. Does that make water dangerous? Maybe we should ban it.

    You are making a reduction ad absurdum fallacy here. Taking a sip might not have hurt him, while drinking a pint glass full of that chemical would be extremely hazardous or fatal.
    Last edited by T. A. Gardner; 12 Aug 19, 09:14.

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by Jutland View Post

    It is not hyerbole when it's a proven lie and Moore got caught twice.

    First when he said Glyphosate​​​ was harmless (it clearly isn't)

    ​​​​​​Second when he said he would drink it and then immediately backed off when his bluff got called.



    Glycophosphate does break down easily, but like all herbicides, it should be handled with kid gloves. we really aren't sure of it's effect on various lymphatic systems, endocrine glands- etc., before it breaks down.

    Growing up in rural Canada ,I've seen firsthand the cumulative effects of both herbicides and pesticides. It ain't pretty.

    ANNNYHAOW, back to fish...
    as Americans you are still entitled to Yellowstone park's all you can catch fish derby, and lake trout spawning season is thirty days away.
    think caviar.... Want to kill invasive lake trout? In Yellowstone, they ...

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2019/06/how-to-eradicate-yellowstone-lake-trout



    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X