In the article titled Canada’s lakes slowly being converted to mining waste dumps, Stephanie Dearing explains how mining corporations are attempting to dispose of their chemical waste. She mentions various occasions where these companies have done the same things in the past. Not one of these stories has a happy ending for the environment. We are taken through the process of passing legislation for waste disposal. What she fails to show is hard evidence as to why our lakes are so important, and what these mines do to them. There is also the point that after so much destruction of freshwater resources, why aren’t they being treasured and protected by the government?
Toward the beginning of the article, Dearing mentions pesticides. She states that:
“It was only 30 - 40 years ago when scientists realized that pesticides and other industrial chemicals were accumulating in Canadian fresh water fish, severely impacting animals that live on fish, such as Osprey. The realization that pesticides not only traveled through the environment but also accumulated in some species led to a concerted effort to reduce the amount of chemicals entering the food chain. Today many fresh water fish species are still not safe to eat, being contaminated with furans, mercury and other chemicals.” (Dearing, 2009)
It is necessary to point out that we still use similar chemicals in daily life. Whether it’s to get rid of an infestation or a bothersome flower, they are ever-present. Our society realizes that harm is being done, but it is much easier to keep on doing what we’re doing. Even though this revelation came decades ago, we haven’t eliminated these toxins from our lives. At this rate they will most likely stay for longer than we can guess.
The same principles translate to the mining industry. The article mentions a couple of mining projects at various stages of development. The most prominent proposal is Sandy Pond, Newfoundland. There is a reported 28.9 million tonnes of ore available for mining. This is one of the world’s finest areas for nickel and cobalt (cbc.ca, 2008). Since the mining company must get permission from the government, they must meet the government’s demands. It would make sense for the government to require the most stringent environmental procedures available. Instead, they are prepared to allow a much cheaper alternative. What Dearing doesn’t mention is that there are other waste disposal options currently open to the mining company. Burying sulfur under the Sandy Pond is simply the most economical option for everyone involved. If the mining company were prepared to spend more money (or the government were prepared to demand it) there would be no need to use one of our few surface freshwater resources.
The article also mentions a proposal by Taseko Mines to use Fish Lake (in British Columbia) as a “mine waste impoundment area.”(Dearing, 2009) Taseko Mines has offered to create an artificial lake to make up for what is being destroyed. It should be mentioned that this replacement lake would have to be put somewhere. This would end up being in the middle (or taking up the entirety) of another ecosystem. Even if the lake was recreated perfectly, the ecosystems in and around the new lake would never be the same as the original lake. In total, at least two ecosystems would be destroyed, and an imperfect one would be created.
Dearing constructed fairly decent article, but it lacked elaboration. There are many examples that prove to the reader that these issues are current and important. This would have been much more informative and solid if there had been fewer items mentioned. Then there would be room for more detailed explanations of each point.
-Jesse Murray
References:
Dearing, Stephanie. (2009) Canada’s Lakes Slowly Being Converted into Mining Waste Dumps. Digital Journal, 27 Sept 2009. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/279767#tab=comments&sc=0&contribute=&local=
Accessed 28 Sept 2009.
CBC. (2009) $2B hydromet plant to be built in Long Harbour. 12 Nov 2008.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2008/11/12/inco-hydrome.html
Accessed 28 Sept 2009.
When writing an article on a topic as important as mining dumps, I must agree with you that it would be important for the author to include all possible solutions. Simply stating the problems without mentioning what other options there are is not the most effective way to prove a point. But are the other options really that much better than what is actually being done? I don't know too much about mining dumps but it seems to me as though any choice of dumping spot would destroy ecosystems. I'm not saying I agree with using a lake as a dump, but I am just wondering if maybe it is one of the better ideas as they will at least be replacing the destroyed lake, or what the other options are.
ReplyDelete