| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64854
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
Nature is sooo much more powerful than given credit for...
Last time I checked, the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt right were atom bombs blew up... and I would think radiation from uranium
isotopes would be more dangerous than "Concentrations of arsenic and fluoride above Mexican drinking water standards"... and harder to live on top of.
Silver has been mined in the San Antonio region since the 1740's... I would bet the miners of today are a bit more tidy with chemicals needed.
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18385
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by BMG
What about the end of the paragraph you quoted? "Geochemical modeling (MINTEQA2 and NETPATH) and analysis of the regional geochemical evolution of the
groundwater from the mining area towards the aquifer of Los Planes shows that the most likely hydrochemical processes include: dilution, precipitation
of calcite, and adsorption of As onto surfaces of iron oxyhydroxides (ferrihydrite). These processes act as natural controls to the extent and amount
of As pollution in the Carrizal and Los Planes aquifers."
|
That was probably written by the consultant for the mining firm. You cite results of a geochemical model, but don't state whether they did a
groundwater flow model in their study. Come back here and defend your statement witrh results from MODFLOW or FRACMAN flow model plus fate and
transport modeling of chemicals.
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18385
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
Nature is sooo much more powerful than given credit for...
Last time I checked, the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt right were atom bombs blew up... and I would think radiation from uranium
isotopes would be more dangerous than "Concentrations of arsenic and fluoride above Mexican drinking water standards"... and harder to live on top of.
|
actually, the radiation after blast is mostly short lived fission products, and significant activity is gone in a few years, decades at most.
i would be more concerned about long term exposure to elevated arsenic, toxicological affects are more sevre (or at least better documented) than
post-bomb radioactivity
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
and I would think...
|
but sometimes not clearly 
|
|
|
rocmoc
Nomad
Posts: 234
Registered: 5-25-2009
Location: Tucson, AZ
Member Is Offline
Mood: Live today like it maybe your LAST!
|
|
Green Valley, AZ. sits next to/East of a huge open-pit mine for gold, silver & copper. The area also has a limit water aquifer. You can search
and find all the articles you wish about how the water is at risk and a huge flume of toxic chemicals are moving towards the town from the mines. The
same thing happen outside of Sac., CA./Folsom,CA. with chemicals that got into the water aquifer from Areojet Rocket Engine Plant. Neither has been
successful in stopping the pollution once it was in place & on the move. Both Locations have/are bringing in water from a different source.
Start looking for another water supply if this goes thu or enjoy your time there. Probably will not be a problem in your lifetime but will be in the
future. The Green Valley Area, Tucson & Pima County are fighting over a current proposal for another open-pit mine West of the Green Valley Area.
The pollution is only one of the issues. The other major issue is the need for water by the open-pit mine and Southern AZ DOES NOT have a surplus of
water. IMHO, two options. 1. Successfully stop the mine and save the area as it is or 2. Mine opens, starting searching for more water supply and
in time the area will change ALOT! Good luck, It has been a many year battle here dealing with the existing mine and now the new mine.
rocmoc n AZ/Mexico
[Edited on 05-25-2009 by rocmoc]
rocmoc n AZ/Mexico
|
|
|
Geo_Skip
Nomad
Posts: 154
Registered: 5-15-2009
Location: Alta California and......../
Member Is Offline
|
|
My 20 years in the mining industry in the USA west, makes me agree with BMG. Yes there are risks...but WITHOUT FACTS, discussion of the impacts is
pointless and inflammatory when presented to inexperienced persons for reaction.
Please CaboRon, either post FACTS or post a question. I suggest that posting, "Is the proposed mine likely to pose at threat to groundwater"
...instead of just knee jerk posting a medial inflammatory piece from a "news source".
We all know that the media is hardly unbiased.
Thanks again BMG, sounds like your background and mine are similar.
|
|
|
bajaguy
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9247
Registered: 9-16-2003
Location: Carson City, NV/Ensenada - Baja Country Club
Member Is Offline
Mood: must be 5 O'clock somewhere in Baja
|
|
Edward Abbey
maybe it's time for some "monkeywrenching"????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monkey_Wrench_Gang
|
|
|
BMG
Super Nomad
Posts: 1776
Registered: 6-10-2007
Location: La Paz / Bahia Asunci�n / Away from home
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by mtgoat666
That was probably written by the consultant for the mining firm. You cite results of a geochemical model, but don't state whether they did a
groundwater flow model in their study. Come back here and defend your statement witrh results from MODFLOW or FRACMAN flow model plus fate and
transport modeling of chemicals. |
If you read my post, you will see that I was only going a bit further in
the article that gnukid cited, not me. So what statement that I made am I supposed to be defending?
I think the world is run by C- students.
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
If you read my post, I cited what was available as reference documentation in reply to the question from BMG, not me. So what statement that I made
am I supposed to be defending?
Cambio?
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Hey Geo and MG666, You guys are like mind readers? awesome can you review the short list of references to the long term issues in El Triunfo and help
us contradict them?
Let's write about the actions to mitigate the negative impact of the Gold Mine on the ecology and population so we can tell these ecojerks to shutup.
|
|
|
DENNIS
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 29510
Registered: 9-2-2006
Location: Punta Banda
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by bajaguy
Edward Abbey
|
Great author/naturalist. "Desert Solitaire"..... one of my constant re-reads.
|
|
|
Diver
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4729
Registered: 11-15-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
.
ARSENIC ANYONE ?
Personal Authors: Eisler, R.
Author Affiliation: U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 11510 American Holly Drive, Laurel, MD 20708-4019, USA.
Editors: No editors
Document Title: Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
Abstract:
Arsenic sources to the biosphere associated with gold mining include waste soil and rocks, residual water from ore concentrations, roasting of some
types of gold-containing ores to remove sulfur and sulfur oxides, and bacterially enhanced leaching. Arsenic concentrations near gold mining
operations are elevated in abiotic materials and biota: maximum total arsenic concentrations measured were 560 µg/litre in surface waters, 5.16
mg/litre in sediment pore waters, 5.6 mg/kg DW in bird liver, 27 mg/kg DW in terrestrial grasses, 50 mg/kg DW in soils, 79 mg/kg DW in aquatic plants,
103 mg/kg DW in bird diets, 225 mg/kg DW in soft parts of bivalve molluscs, 324 mg/litre in mine drainage waters, 625 mg/kg DW in aquatic insects,
7700 mg/kg DW in sediments, and 21 000 mg/kg DW in tailings. Single oral doses of arsenicals that were fatal to 50% of tested species ranged from 17
to 48 mg/kg BW in birds and from 2.5 to 33 mg/kg BW in mammals. Susceptible species of mammals were adversely affected at chronic doses of 1-10 mg
As/kg BW or 50 mg As/kg diet. Sensitive aquatic species were damaged at water concentrations of 19-48 µg As/litre, 120 mg As/kg diet, or tissue
residues (in the case of freshwater fish) >1.3 mg/kg fresh weight. Adverse effects to crops and vegetation were recorded at 3-28 mg of
water-soluble As/litre (equivalent to about 25-85 mg total As/kg soil) and at atmospheric concentrations >3.9 µg As/m3. Gold miners had a number of
arsenic-associated health problems, including excess mortality from cancer of the lung, stomach, and respiratory tract. Miners and schoolchildren in
the vicinity of gold mining activities had elevated urine arsenic of 25.7 µg/litre (range, 2.2-106.0 µg/litre). Of the total population at this
location, 20% showed elevated urine arsenic concentrations associated with future adverse health effects; arsenic-contaminated drinking water is the
probable causative factor of elevated arsenic in their urine. Proposed arsenic criteria to protect human health and natural resources are listed and
discussed. Many of these proposed criteria do not adequately protect sensitive species.
Publisher: Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
OR MAYBE CYANIDE ??
US Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 11510 American Holly Drive, Laurel, Maryland 20708-4019, USA.
Cyanide extraction of gold through milling of high-grade ores and heap leaching of low-grade ores requires cycling of millions of liters of alkaline
water containing high concentrations of potentially toxic sodium cyanide (NaCN), free cyanide, and metal-cyanide complexes. Some milling operations
result in tailings ponds of 150 ha and larger. Heap leach operations that spray or drip cyanide onto the flattened top of the ore heap require
solution processing ponds of about 1 ha in surface area. Puddles of various sizes may occur on the top of heaps, where the highest concentrations of
NaCN are found. Solution recovery channels are usually constructed at the base of leach heaps, some of which may be exposed. All these
cyanide-containing water bodies are hazardous to wildlife, especially migratory waterfowl and bats, if not properly managed. Accidental spills of
cyanide solutions into rivers and streams have produced massive kills of fish and other aquatic biota. Freshwater fish are the most cyanide-sensitive
group of aquatic organisms tested, with high mortality documented at free cyanide concentrations >20 microg/L and adverse effects on swimming and
reproduction at >5 microg/L. Exclusion from cyanide solutions or reductions of cyanide concentrations to nontoxic levels are the only certain
methods of protecting terrestrial vertebrate wildlife from cyanide poisoning; a variety of exclusion/cyanide reduction techniques are presented and
discussed. Additional research is recommended on (1) effects of low-level, long-term, cyanide intoxication in birds and mammals by oral and inhalation
routes in the vicinity of high cyanide concentrations; (2) long-term effects of low concentrations of cyanide on aquatic biota; (3) adaptive
resistance to cyanide; and (4) usefulness of various biochemical indicators of cyanide poisoning. To prevent flooding in mine open pits, and to enable
earth moving on a large scale, it is often necessary to withdraw groundwater and use it for irrigation, discharge it to rapid infiltration basins, or,
in some cases, discharge it to surface waters. Surface waters are diverted around surface mining operations. Adverse effects of groundwater drawdown
include formation of sinkholes within 5 km of groundwater drawdown; reduced stream flows with reduced quantities of wate available for irrigation,
stock watering, and domestic, mining and milling, and municipal uses; reduction or loss of vegetation cover for wildlife, with reduced carrying
capacity for terrestrial wildlife; loss of aquatic habitat for native fishes and their prey; and disruption of Native American cultural traditions.
Surface discharge of excess mine dewatering water and other waters to main waterways may contain excess quantities of arsenic, total dissolved solids,
boron, copper, fluoride, and zinc. When mining operations cease, and the water pumps are dismantled, these large open pits may slowly fill with water,
forming lakes. The water quality of pit lakes may present a variety of pressing environmental problems.
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by mtgoat666
Come back here and defend your statement witrh results from MODFLOW or FRACMAN flow model plus fate and transport modeling of chemicals.
|
So cool when mygoat said, "witrh results" implying "MODFLOW or FRACMAN flow model plus fate and transport modeling of chemicals" are like so totally
scientifically relevant.
Dude we got this one
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
If 10% of what the goat and the other guy say is cool we are sitting on solid gold mi amigos!
Each of these links refer specifically to data about el triunfo-san antonio?
http://www.springerlink.com/content/2mblv6p7lldmbm4q/
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2389785
http://indy2.igeograf.unam.mx/aih/pdf/T4/T4-31.pdf
http://myais.fsktm.um.edu.my/1049/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j518hq7n15781797/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi...
;_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e16e5f1a5929167c73790a2dd0cbb299
Everyone who visits triunfo knows only some of the people are still sick from contamination, and everybody who already died we do not need to count as
being negatively impacted... I don't think. Don't look at the population reduction due to illness, that's the past? like the past is the past,
right? And the way the people look in general when you visit and the obvious issues, we need more time.
[Edited on 6-19-2009 by gnukid]
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by BMG...
I am not disputing the fact that the mining activities in El Triunfo have added pollutants into the local ground water. I am questioning the statement
made in the article that there has been "irreversible damage" to the environment. I tend to disbelieve arguments when they use such sweeping
statements without concrete evidence. Therefore, I personally am not persuaded by the article. |
Exactly the consensus here, its only been 200 years with reported negative impact, these articles cite scientific journals and published data to the
present so whats that, like only 200 years, no proof of "irreversible damage" cause we need more time to prove that point, right BMG? er DK?
MGoat666? Geo
no te preocupes
|
|
|
BMG
Super Nomad
Posts: 1776
Registered: 6-10-2007
Location: La Paz / Bahia Asunci�n / Away from home
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by gnukid
Exactly the consensus here, its only been 200 years with reported negative impact, these articles cite scientific journals and published data to the
present so whats that, like only 200 years, no proof of "irreversible damage" cause we need more time to prove that point, right BMG? er DK?
MGoat666? Geo
no te preocupes |
You are not making me believe the argument of irreversible environmental damage. No where
in any of the articles I read from your list indicated that any of the environmental problems caused by the mining are irreversible. In fact, I quoted
one of the articles you cited that plainly states: "These processes act as natural controls to the extent and amount of As pollution in the Carrizal
and Los Planes aquifers." This would indicate to me that the damage is being reversed.
It's also been pointed out that mining is different now than it was 100 - 200 years ago. The question is whether any current mining can be done with a
minimum impact on the environment.
I think the world is run by C- students.
|
|
|
k-rico
Super Nomad
Posts: 2079
Registered: 7-10-2008
Location: Playas de Tijuana
Member Is Offline
|
|
What's all the hubbub about whether or not the poisoning of the water supply is reversible or not?
"Don't worry you and your kids can't drink the water but maybe your grandkids can?"
Mining is a dirty business and to make it clean really eats into the profits. Not true?
When I read the topic of this thread I thought it was going to be about gringos switching from gin tonics to gin with tap water and draining the water
supply.
Very "Tony Santos." 
|
|
|
wilderone
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3824
Registered: 2-9-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
"I would bet the miners of today are a bit more tidy with chemicals needed."
David, you seriously need a reality check.
http://www.miningwatch.ca/index.php?/porgera/tulin_campusano...
http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=441
http://www.miningwatch.ca/index.php?/AXMIN/Cdn_Cos_in_Ghana
|
|
|
wilderone
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3824
Registered: 2-9-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
http://www.tarsandswatch.org/will-canada-s-oil-boom-be-envir...
http://environmentalism.suite101.com/article.cfm/mining_crea...
http://www.canada.com/Technology/story.html?id=1237355
AGAIN - IT'S A BIOSPHERE RESERVE.
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by BMG
| Quote: | Originally posted by gnukid
Exactly the consensus here, its only been 200 years with reported negative impact, these articles cite scientific journals and published data to the
present so whats that, like only 200 years, no proof of "irreversible damage" cause we need more time to prove that point, right BMG? er DK?
MGoat666? Geo
no te preocupes |
You are not making me believe the argument of irreversible environmental damage. No where
in any of the articles I read from your list indicated that any of the environmental problems caused by the mining are irreversible. In fact, I quoted
one of the articles you cited that plainly states: "These processes act as natural controls to the extent and amount of As pollution in the Carrizal
and Los Planes aquifers." This would indicate to me that the damage is being reversed.
It's also been pointed out that mining is different now than it was 100 - 200 years ago. The question is whether any current mining can be done with a
minimum impact on the environment. |
Your point that nothing is not irreversible (everything breaksdown or has a halflife) is well made, however alternatively the few data points I pulled
in the short time I looked at it answered your original question, to note that at present there is a risk posed by the pollution to the region fro El
Triunfo in far reaching ways to aquifers, yet more so in higher concentrations closer to the source, and it is remained polluted for a long time now
after operations have ceased. So you point that "nothing is not irreversible" holds no bearing. Its a hollow point since people live only one lifetime
not forever!
Let's not play this game of "prove the future" and attack each other.
The real question is, as always: Is there an agreement in the permit which monitors the negative impact and is there an agreement to reduce any
negative impacts sufficiently to reduce risks posed to the population, so as to not increase the level of illness.
And to what degree will increased illnesses be monitored.
In general, with the data available, and you can find many specific studies for the region, and comparable studies, we as a population throughout the
region, have reason to be concerned and we should be involved to ensure that adequate steps are taken.
It's all an ongoing process, with levels to be monitored and actions to be monitored.
There is risk, to what degree will those risks be alleviated and will Mexico's regulatory mechanism do the job? In general from experience, the region
does not have a strong track record either in regulatory actions or in holding people responsible for negative impact.
It lies upon the population, as it should, to be responsible, be involved, find out for yourself, take care of the region for now and the future and
participate in the process to ensure that the actions to mitigate risk posed is increasingly sufficient.
Please let's take our energies and put them where they have most impact, and focus on the ongoing actions that will rip into the mountains and use
harsh techniques to extract metal while leaving a disrupted terrafirma.
[Edited on 6-19-2009 by gnukid]
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64854
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
Then what is your solution for extracting the needed minerals, if not a responsible mining company (which your links didn't show)? Perhaps the
government observers were getting paid to look the other way?
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
