Summary: An, Alaskan mine just got to okay to dump the mines waste into a local lake. The Lower Slate Lake, in Tongess National Park. This lake happens to be just 3 miles from the mine, and though all the fish will die from the mines toixns it was still approved. The mine had been closed for about 80years and its reopening was pending on the ruling of the dumpage. Evnviormentlist fear that this ruling will lossen protection on all lakes and streams. In usally when dealing with mines all their waste goes to a special talings pond. The judge agreed that this taling is not what is considered "fill material" and there for did not need any speical treatment from the EPA. The mine issued for their permint in 2005 just 3 years after the Bush administrain widened the parimiters of fill material making it so some conamtianed wastes could be dumped in water ways.
reaction: This is just absloutly ridclouse. I can not belive that congress or the judge allowed this to happen. With learning all we have about biodiversty and how at risk out water ways are I am shocked. I thought that more people who are in charge would have better sense than this. And it really makes me wonder way they just didn't go with a standered tialing pool like the do noramlly with mines.
questions
1) How many animals can die from this?
2) What effects will this have are the lake besides animals deaths?
3) Why didn't they use a taling pool?
4) Who were they people that voted for this?
5) Is the EPA trying to fix this in any way?
i couldnt get the picture to post but heres the url http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_T_FoLFNurfQ/SlKHG7-nhiI/AAAAAAAAAOE/fzDmgByr8mg/s1600-h/dead-fish-on-lake-winnipeg-2.jpg
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI feel that its not fair that all these animals to suffer from our waste, but I also understand that the mining company had little choice. I'm not trying to side with them, but they had waste that they needed to get rid of. As it says in the article, "the alternative would have been more environmentally harmful", and " [Dumping into the lake] is the best environmental choice." I hate to see so many organisms die, but the company needed to make a decision in which someone gets badly hurt.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of a 7th grade project I did. One side was the oil company (mining company) and the other side was the Environmentalists and we had to debate with each other to find some sort of compromise. In the end, the oil company actually gave in and let the Environmentalists keep their area clean. Despite the oil company winning, these both can be connected because the project almost seemed as if it was at a court of law, which is where this issue was handled.
I thought of a few more questions:
1.What will happen to the lake in 30 years?
2.What would happen if Congress would do this to another lake, and another, and so on?
3.If we were to put more funding to this cause, what alternative solution could they make?
This is not right! The mining company should not be allowed to dump their waste into the local lake. If we let them dump it into this small body of water, it has a great potential to spread into large bodies of water. Allowing this to go through was a mistake because now mostly likely anything that is living in that water will end up of dying. If it spreads then there is a great potential that this waste would kill tons of aquatic animals. The judge needs to review this case because it’s not good for the water and area around this lake. This reminds me of the same thing Sam did in 7th grade, I did it too in Mrs. McClure’s class. To argue both points is very difficult because both the oil company and the water/lake have legitimate reasons why they need to use this space or remain clean.
ReplyDeleteI thought of three more questions to ask:
1. Is congress doing anything to revoke this decision?
2. What is in this waste that would make it extremely harmful to put it somewhere else?
3. Is there any other place or way the mine could get rid of this waste?
The mine should not be aloud to do this. They are ruining the habitat and poluting the water. This ruling is going against everything that congress is telling people not to do. All the signs that so "No Poluting, $200 fine" mean absolutely nothing to this ruling that congress made. I can relate this to a professional sports star doing something wrong than not going to jail. The professional athlete would brake the law, then they would be considered "special" and not go to jail. The mine is being considered "special" by being aloud to do something that every normal citizen is not aloud to do.
ReplyDeleteWhy is the mine considered "special"?
What made them decide to reopen after being closed for 80 years?
How long does the EPA have before the mine reopens?
I think there is no way the mining company should do this. The EPA should cancel all the paramiters that the Bush administration widened. I think it's obvious that the company knows what effect this will have on the environment, they just don't care. In class we learned many alternatives to simply dumping waste into a lake. If a bunch of 9th graders can do it im sure company CEOs can too.
ReplyDeleteQuestion #3: I think that the entire ecyo system could collapse. Not only will the animals in the water die, but the plants around them will die too. Primary consumers that depend on these plants will die, along with all animals that feed on them. The waste is essentally kicking out the ecosystem from the bottom. Some specalized species won't be able to leave the lake area and die out completely.