| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
DK I know this is futile.
I am not in a position to recommend techniques or corporations nor am I or anyone here somehow obligated to answer questions in this regard, we should
ask general and specific questions to those who pose threats to the regions health.
Once more, this isn't some argument between surfers or campers. The methods to approach this issue have long been established.
Get involved in the process to ensure the negative impacts are reduced. Follow through, keep at it. Reduce negative impacts to the region.
Es Posible, Todo es posible, juntos contigo!
[Edited on 12-13-2009 by gnukid]
|
|
|
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
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. |
You have completely misread my
argument. The original article states: "This lack of confidence is largely due to the bitter experience suffered in El Triumfo and San Antonio where
the environment was irreversibly damaged."
I asked what irreversible damage.
You posted a series of links that cited damage but none indicated irreversible damage. Most did indicate environmental damage caused by mining
activities but some also indicated that it was being mitigated naturally over time, therefore not irreversible. There is also ample evidence that some
of the problem is naturally occurring.
My point is, and has been this entire thread, that the article makes a broad sweeping statement that is open to debate. In addition, it bases most of
it's argument on the reader believing that statement without question.
I think the world is run by C- students.
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
You are narrowing it down, and no I am not missing your point, "I asked what irreversible damage." which begs the question, prove the future?
There is serious damage to the water with increased levels of arsenic which is longstanding after the operations ceased, to date the damage has not
been alleviated by natural forces nor mitigation.
For those of us who live near there, like me and you and lots of other Nomads, we are at risk as are the people who live closer.
Let's consider the people of El Triunfo who have suffered greatly and work to ensure that their families are not at increased risk. Perhaps a visit to
El Triunfo is warranted, see the people and at least consider the impact. This topic really is about the health of the people and habitat.
So I am not sure why you would argue some undefinable point of minutia which has no logical end, while you are currently at risk and the project
discussed in the article certainly will expose you to more risks. There is no question about that as we have data to support it.
Why are you obfuscating such critical issues while that angle certainly is a distraction to this discussion and adds nothing and has no end point.
Yes all properties have a half-life and eventually break down, true. I think you are being a bit facetiously defensive in order to avoid the actual
issue. There is a permitted mining operation that will negatively impact the region, the question is will the negative impact to humanity and habit be
alleviated. Prior comparable experience, says likely the operation will not alleviate the damage to the region and its people sufficiently.
So instead of arguing points of minutia that are irrefutable and therefore senseless e.g. all chemical properties breakdown eventually, why not focus
on things you can change for the better? Especially those that have a high percentage chance of negatively impacting the water, the ecology, and
therefore impact you?
Let's be clear, I am no expert on hydrology or mining or much really, I am only asking reasonable questions that really should be asked often.
[Edited on 6-19-2009 by gnukid]
|
|
|
wilderone
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3824
Registered: 2-9-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
and ain't this pretty:
http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/2036
Local and NGO opposition can be successful. How do I sign up?
|
|
|
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
You are narrowing it down, and no I am not missing your point, "I asked what irreversible damage." which begs the question, prove the future?
|
Sorry, but you did miss my point and you are still missing it. I just don't know how to make myself more
clear than I have already tried to be. I am not arguing for or against future, present or past mining.
I think the world is run by C- students.
|
|
|
JESSE
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3370
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
I met one of the owners of that mine, probably the most obscene european i have ever met. Had to kick him out of the restaurant because he was so loud
and obnoxious, he was dining right next to the secretary of tourism and a congressman. After he left, both tables started clapping. Not very friendly
people.
|
|
|
The Gull
Super Nomad
Posts: 2223
Registered: 8-28-2003
Location: Rancho Descanso, BCN
Member Is Offline
Mood: High
|
|
Environmental Improvement
The clearest example of an improved environment around Todo Santos can be made by the recent departure of CabRon.
Vegas EIR was judged to be negative.
�I won\'t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.� William F. Buckley, Jr.
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18400
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by The Gull
The clearest example of an improved environment around Todo Santos can be made by the recent departure of CabRon.
Vegas EIR was judged to be negative. |
hi gully boy,
nice to see your cheerful self back here and contributing all those good vibes. you were gone for a while. were you incarcerated?
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by BMG
| Quote: | Originally posted by gnukid
You are narrowing it down, and no I am not missing your point, "I asked what irreversible damage." which begs the question, prove the future?
|
Sorry, but you did miss my point and you are still missing it. I just don't know how to make myself more
clear than I have already tried to be. I am not arguing for or against future, present or past mining. |
You could try to make your point if it was important you can use references too.
For example do a search on el triunfo san antonio and aresenic or pollution and select references and quotes that make your point.
Here are some of the references previously noted and the salient points that note the increased risk to us in the future even the mine is no longer in
operation. As = arsenic
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1514856
"The San Antonio-El Triunfo mining district, located at a mountainous region 45 km southeast of La Paz, Baja California, has been worked since the
late 1700s. Mine waste material produced during 200 years of mineral extraction area poses a risk of local groundwater pollution and eventually,
regional pollution to the Carrizal (west basin) and the Los Planes (east basin) aquifers. There are different types of deposits in the mining area.
These are dominated by epithermal veins, in which arsenopyrite is an important component. Carrillo and Drever (1998a) concluded that, even though the
amount of mine waste is relatively small in comparison to the large scale area, significant As in groundwater derived from the mine waste piles is
found locally in the groundwater."
"The arsenic concentrations vary seasonally, especially after the heavy summer thunderstorms. "
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2389785
"Based on an estimated retardation factor (R), the travel time of the As plume from the SA-ET area to La Paz and Los Planes is about 700 to 5000
years."
|
|
|
toneart
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4901
Registered: 7-23-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: Skeptical
|
|
Why not drop the word "irreversible" in your discussions? That seems to be a sticking point that cannot easily be proven and is impeding the benefits
of this discussion.
The other word being used is"damage". That its occurrence is in the past, present and future is irrefutable.
It should not be a political issue because it affects everyone. Unfortunately, the issue does break down over the philosophical attitudes of Laizzes
Faire Capitalism without restrictions, and potential harmful risk to the general population.
Why condone the risk to the environment, unless you are an officer, shareholder or employee of the proposed mine? The acronym, NIMBY (Not In My Back
Yard) certainly applies here and in my opinion, should be the stance the people of Todos Santos should be taking.
Finally, a word about discussing politics: The back and forth discussions in this string have maintained civil questions and answers without labeling,
name-calling or ridicule. The posts, while seeming to reach an impasse, remain objective. That is healthy! Civility allows the debaters the freedom to
disagree or possibly even reach agreement.
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Yes, BMG is my next door neighbor!
Obviously there are those that benefit and those that suffer from heavy use of chemicals in mining. Historically, those that suffer the most from the
pollution are least likely to have resources to research and promote their concerns while those that benefit from mining profitability have resources
to do research to make their point, thereby reducing their responsibilities and increasing their profit, they actually increase profit from their
studies.
Ultimately the issue is measured by how many more people per 100,000 would suffer increased illness. This issue also requires studies, funding and
time to complete.
So you can see the deck is stacked against the people and the environment who would likely suffer the negative consequences the most. For example, the
local population in el triunfo and the region of Todos Santos.
On the one hand you have corporate profits from gold mining and on the other hand you have people and the environment.
Consider that we should do everything possible to ask questions and put pressure often on the operation to reduce the likelihood pollution to
groundwater.
|
|
|
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
You could try to make your point if it was important you can use references too. |
I am going to try one more
time. I am sure everyone is getting bored with this bickering. I apologize.
The article claims that people don't believe that the mining companies and government officials will enforce environmental protections as promised.
According to the article, the reason for this is purported to be the irreversible damage in El Triunfo: "This lack of confidence is largely due to the
bitter experience suffered in El Triumfo and San Antonio where the environment was irreversibly damaged."
I questioned the above statement asking what irreversible damage.
You supplied links that indeed point to environmental damage although I did not find any mention of irreversible damage. In fact, one of the articles
you cited indicated just the opposite: "These processes act as natural controls to the extent and amount of As pollution in the Carrizal and Los
Planes aquifers."
Therefore, the argument that irreversible damage has occurred is debatable as per your own link. Again, I have made absolutely no argument for or
against future mining. My entire argument has been against the use of a statement in the article that is treated as fact but indeed may not be. Some
will think I am nitpicking, but whenever a statement is thrown out as if fact I have to question it. In my mind, this undermines the entire article
does not help their cause, right or wrong.
Why would you question me about statement in the article, but not the fact that the statement is unsupportable? I am not the one who made the claim.
Instead, you keep arguing against future mining as if I have taken a pro mining stance. To which I say, I HAVE STATED NO POSITION ON THE MINING ISSUE!
| Quote: | Originally posted by toneart
Why not drop the word "irreversible" in your discussions? That seems to be a sticking point that cannot easily be proven and is impeding the benefits
of this discussion. |
You may have made my point better than all of my other attempts. The author of the
article used the word "irreverible". That made the statement unsupportable. As well as I've seen you write, I believe you realize how this single word
crippled the entire article. Or maybe it's just me.
I think the world is run by C- students.
|
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
Todos Santos. From an artistic expat haven to a booming mine town? Looks like a conflict.
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18400
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by gnukid
On the one hand you have corporate profits from gold mining and on the other hand you have people and the environment.
|
on the third hand, mining is necessary to support our economies. we can't keep going without extracted natural resources. you just need to be
proactive so when it occurs in your baclkard it is done in an acceptable manner.
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
I appreciate your interest in looking at the articles, reading some. And thx for the compliment.
There are stacks of articles about the regions water and about El Triunfo, but we keep referring to similar pieces and one paragraph thank goodness,
interesting too, apparently there is something to be read and interpreted?
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1514856
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2389785
"Based on an estimated retardation factor (R), the travel time of the As plume from the SA-ET area to La Paz and Los Planes is about 700 to 5000
years."
As you pointed out, the arsenic pollutions progress to affect neighboring water sources will be retarded (R); the movement of arsenic from close to
the source at El Triunfo to La Paz and Los Plannes will be slowed down by the type of soil, but it doesn't just disappear nor is lessened over time,
just the movement of arsenic pollution from one water area to another presumably is slowed down over a longer time due to natural causes (rocks
maybe), as compared to other locations in the study.
Despite this great news:
The people of EL Triunfo have suffered from devastating pollution that isn't going away. The polluted water table has higher concentrations of arsenic
closer to El Triunfo. So people farther away may suffer less or perhaps it will be a long time before the pollution arrives to the next town, however
the people of El Triunfo will also likely see an increased pollution to their watertable over time by this additional source of pollution at the new
nearby mine. While we may see low levels of pollution at greater distance, there are areas which will suffer greater concentrations.
So you can see that there are many articles which cite the elevated pollution and its source in El Triunfo and note is history, path, progress, noting
whether the affects are greater or lesser, now, later, closer or far away.
The point of this article seem to serve to alleviate our concerns, but you can see the data is also there to show the problem with polluted water
isn't going away.
I quite honestly thought that you BMG were leading us to this point with a sophisticated question-response, of course?
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by mtgoat666
| Quote: | Originally posted by gnukid
On the one hand you have corporate profits from gold mining and on the other hand you have people and the environment.
|
on the third hand, mining is necessary to support our economies. We can't keep going without extracted natural resources. you just need to be
proactive so when it occurs in your baclkard it is done in an acceptable manner. |
We don't "need" a gold mine? we "need" food and health.
Modern mining uses machine techniques and does not significantly benefit local employment or the economy?
Why are you promoting the gold mine?
|
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
Most of the local folks lose when a big industry moves into town.
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18400
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by gnukid
| Quote: | Originally posted by mtgoat666
| Quote: | Originally posted by gnukid
On the one hand you have corporate profits from gold mining and on the other hand you have people and the environment.
|
on the third hand, mining is necessary to support our economies. We can't keep going without extracted natural resources. you just need to be
proactive so when it occurs in your baclkard it is done in an acceptable manner. |
We don't "need" a gold mine? we "need" food and health.
Modern mining uses machine techniques and does not significantly benefit local employment or the economy?
Why are you promoting the gold mine? |
not promoting it. just telling you to keep an open mind. you are a fool to think that a major mine is not an economic engine. economic prosperity
can bring food and health.
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18400
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Cypress
Most of the local folks lose when a big industry moves into town.
|
that doesn't make sense when you look at flip side.
when big industry leaves town, most of the locals suffer. have you been to pittsburgh, detroit, etc. look at what is happening in tourist towns when
the "big industry" (tourists)doesn't visit.
ever seen what happens when a big company leaves town?
anyhow, i am not supporting any project, i know very little about that area and the proposed project.
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Like BMG I am not for or against the mine yet, I was just looking at the issue and discussing it.
Now I am beginning to look at Gold Mining and this project in particular to understand what is the risk?
I am sure there is a lot to know.
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1120.html
"The most significant risk from use of cyanide solutions in gold mining is possible leaching into soil and groundwater. There exists the potential for
catastrophic cyanide spills that could inundate an ecosystem with toxic levels of cyanide. In 2000, heavy rain, ice, and snow caused a breach in a
tailings dam (tailings are the cyanide-treated ore wastes, from which gold has been removed) at a gold mine in Baia Mare, Romania resulting in the
release of 100,000 cubic meters of cyanide-rich waste into the surrounding watershed. Drinking water supplies were cut off for 2.5 million people and
nearly all of the fish in the surrounding waters were killed."
[Edited on 6-20-2009 by gnukid]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
