To the editor:
Bravo to the organizers of the public meeting on Mining in Maine on Jan. 9 in Ashland for bringing in geologists who directly addressed environmental risks and attempts to mitigate them. And thanks also for encouraging unlimited questions and comments from the audience. The event focused on the difference between “legacy mines” and modern mines; the former operating in the days when there was not sufficient scientific understanding about pollution, nor adequate regulations, and the latter operating with advanced knowledge and technology.
Important questions posed by audience members did not get reassuring answers. What about the possibility of leaks in liners supposed to contain the toxic elements? Yes, there is potential for leaks. In addition to liner flaws, flooding, earthquakes or other natural disasters can cause the tailings ponds containing the toxins to fail. Is there potential for harm in using bactericides to clean up the chemicals used in processing the metals? Yes, just as there is in the use of pesticides.
Hydro-geologist Carol White explained, “Inherent in any of these studies is uncertainty … nobody can guarantee water quality in the future, the idea is to draw up the rules in a way that minimizes negative impacts.”
Asked to provide a specific example of a modern mine using the advanced technology, Geologist Robert Marvinney referred to the Flambeau mine in Wisconsin. Another audience member googled “Flambeau Mine” on the spot and asked about the toxic materials from that mine that are polluting surrounding waters after closure in 1997. Marvinney said that there is conflicting scientific opinion about the success of that mine in reducing risks and it depends on who you believe.
So should we believe the scientists who work for the mining industry (http://www.flambeaumine.com/) or the scientists used by a website like miningtruth.org that provides an overview of the technologies used and of the pollution problems that remain (http://www.miningtruth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ Flambeau-Mine-fact-sheet-Final-1.pdf)?
Nick Bennnet, a scientist for the Natural Resources Council of Maine explained to me some of the serious environmental risks the Board of Environmental Protection has passed in its new regulations that you can read at http://alice1938.blogspot.com/2014/01/more-on-mining-in-maine.html.
There are important advances being made in the scientific understanding of risks, and some technologies are being developed that might help mitigate the risks. But there is not enough evidence to warrant the relaxation of environmental safeguards. Instead, there is sound evidence that they increase the risks.
It’s true, there is plenty of uncertainty in all areas of our lives, but when we can choose to reduce the uncertainty by writing more rather than less rigorous protections, it is socially irresponsible to increase the negative impacts and the uncertainty as these regulations do. We need to err on the side of caution and remain vigilant about the motives of those who seek economic profit without serious regard for the health and safety of the environment, humans and wildlife.
I look forward to further educational meetings promised by organizers and hope they will bring in alternative scientific viewpoints about current success in managing the risks.
Alice Bolstridge
Presque Isle
