To the editor:
Risks we humans, both individually and collectively, take with social justice, our environment, our economy, and our politics are too often made on the basis of perceived possibility of limited and temporary gains than on evidence-based probability of harm.
A headline in last week’s Star-Herald says, “State geologist favors smart mining.” It’s not clear from the content of the article what is meant by “smart mining.” Smart for whom and for what? An open-pit mine at Bald Mountain could trigger an economic boom. It could create hundreds of good paying jobs as promoters of the mine promise. Those are certainly possibilities.
However, in all my research over the last several years, I have not found any reason to believe that an open-pit mineral mine at Bald Mountain can be smart for protecting the environment. The evidence-based probabilities are that it will pollute the pristine waters of our area, likely require taxpayer maintenance in perpetuity to minimize damage, and destroy the sports industry, a major part of the local economy. Any possible economic boom will end in an economic bust when the minerals are exhausted or the mining company goes bankrupt.
In these situations, it is foolish to enact legislation on the basis of risky possibilities as the mining supporters are attempting to do, the third legislative attempt in three years, in spite of overwhelming opposition from the public and scientific evidence of harm.
In politics and the economy, risky possibilities for economic and political gain too often win, and probabilities for harm are too often ignored. Please, consider the evidence and let your legislators know that weakening environmental rules to allow open pit mining is too risky.
Alice Bolstridge
Presque Isle
