Relying on Mining
Instead of Lakes
What good will it do to be the Land of 10,000 polluted lakes with no wild rice or potable water? Well, I suppose, if the water is no good, maybe California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nevada, all running out of water, won’t want MN polluted water?
Recently Frank Ongaro, the Executive Director of Mining Minnesota took offense at a large group of Minnesota Doctors and Medical Associations who recommended review of health effects of Polymet’s project. Mr. Ongaro’s response can be found on the Duluth News Tribune Website, the article was dated October 27, 2014. His comments are basically pro-business arguments that he has been repeating since at least 2006. The one thing missing from his newer rhetoric is the insistence that Polymet “has a reputation of getting it right the first time,” he used to state that boldly. He now insists they do have it right. But, it is obvious from Polymet’s failed Draft Environmental Impact Statement DEIS and the thousands of comments and recommendations elicited by the subsequent Supplemental DEIS, that Polymet does not know how to do it right, they just want us to think they do. And, that appears to be Mr. Ongaro’s main function in life, making people believe that somebody knows how and we should just leave them alone, don’t ask questions and don’t suggest further health review of the project.
Is this the reason Mr. Ongaro believes in 2014 No Further Health Studies are Needed?
We all must insist that the State of Minnesota gets this right. If the health of you and your family are being threatened by an industrial project, it is the right and the duty of health officials to say something, to ask questions, and if possible demand review. To do otherwise would be professionally negligent. I applaud and thank these professionals for standing up for us. Personally, I would rather take the recommendations of Medical Doctors, Medical Scientists and Medical Associations than those of a man with a degree in Business Administration and Executive Director of Mining Minnesota.
This is the response by some of the Duluth Doctors Mr. Ongaro attacked in his response to the request for further health reviews, from the Duluth News Tribune November 7, 2014 titled,
Doctors’ view: On PolyMet, the priority is health
As Duluth doctors, our first priority is the health of our patients and community. We do not align ourselves with industry or with advocacy groups. Instead, we listen, communicate and ask questions.
Just because we use a resource like copper in modern society does not mean we should refrain from asking critical questions of the industry. As physicians, we have serious questions about sulfide mining in Northeastern Minnesota and would not make statements without first educating ourselves and consulting with experts. We’ve done extensive reading on the issue, have reviewed the PolyMet Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement and have met with the Minnesota departments of health and natural resources. Educating ourselves only has deepened our concern.
Minnesota has no experience with sulfide mining for copper. To date, we’ve been unable to identify any sulfide mine that has been developed, operated and closed without producing polluted drainage. This August, a tailings dam at a British Columbia copper and gold mine failed, sending 1.3 billion gallons of contamination into local waters. With 10 percent of the world’s freshwater within PolyMet’s watershed, our community has a lot at risk.
We must be proactive in asking, “How will PolyMet affect the long-term health of our community?” A health risk assessment for the PolyMet project is needed to answer this question.
As Duluth doctors, our concern is shared by many other health professionals. The Minnesota Public Health Association, the Minnesota Medical Association and more than 150 individual health professionals and scientists have asked for an assessment of PolyMet health impacts. Considering that the PolyMet plan involves several of the 10 toxins of major public health concern as identified by the World Health Organization — mercury, lead, arsenic and air pollutants — we recommend a health risk assessment as part of the PolyMet environmental review to examine health risks in careful, scientific detail.
PolyMet’s Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement did not give us confidence that human health will be protected. We note that information on mercury release and the potential for mercury bioaccumulation is insufficient. Mercury, a toxic metal, affects the developing brains of infants and children. Studies have shown that exposure to low levels of mercury over time affects learning, attention, memory and IQ. We know this already is a problem in our region and that a Minnesota Department of Health study found that one in 10 newborns in Minnesota’s Lake Superior basin was born with unsafe levels of mercury in the blood. This translates into behavior and learning problems for children. A recent study in the Lancet, a well-respected medical journal, discussed the rise of neurodevelopmental disabilities in children and pointed to industrial chemicals (including lead, mercury, arsenic and manganese) that injure the developing brain among the known causes for this rise in prevalence. Child and adolescent psychiatrists state that resources to address this already are strained.
More information also is needed on PolyMet’s release of arsenic, lead, manganese, mineral fibers and other air pollutants. The medical literature has established clear effects of air pollution on asthma, lung and heart disease. PolyMet’s proposed mine project also will result in the release of significant additional air pollution from electrical power generation used to operate the mine.
A growing number of doctors, nurses and professionals in Duluth and throughout the state want to make sure our community’s health is protected before the PolyMet project is considered. We will all live with the consequences of the PolyMet project here in Northeastern Minnesota. Shouldn’t we collectively expect better assurance that our health and the health of future generations is not placed at risk?
Drs. Susan Nordin, Emily Onello, Jennifer Pearson and Margaret Saracino practice in Duluth.
The 2014 Sigurd Olson Lecture Series is the 15th year these lectures have been given. This year Mike Clark of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition stated that he is unaware of anyplace where sulfide mining has occurred that there was not significant pollution as a result. He described how his coalition stopped mining in Yellowstone National Park. A difficult task when confronted with the amount of gold and copper in the ground and the mining companies deep pockets and political influence. All of which sounds quite familiar to anyone involved with Sulfide Mining efforts in Minnesota.
Approximately 35 pro-mining advocates met Wed. March 5, 2014 at Amici’s in Ely, MN to promote and discuss the benefits of mining in Minnesota. The main speaker was James Skurla from the University of Minnesota Duluth who presented his report on The Economic Impact of Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Mining. Unfortunately, the title of his talk is a misnomer. Mr. Skurla quickly points out that his study was not a cost benefits analysis, but that this type of economic study is useful none the less. And, he is correct a benefits analysis is useful when comparing multiple projects. This however is a Benefits analysis only with no other competing projects or alternative options for comparison. A true Cost/Benefits analysis of hard rock mining can be seen here: Dr. Power’s Cost/Benefits analysis of hard rock mining.
There were four speakers at this event, sponsored by Up North Jobs, Ely Echo, & Mining Minnesota. James Skurla, Tommy Rukavina, Jay Maki, and Bill Erzar. Due to the length of the overall program each speaker will be presented here in order of appearance at the meeting.
James Skurla, U of M Duluth
Representative Tommy Rukavian
Ely Resident Jay Maki
Ely Resident Bill Erzar
The facts presented by these individuals is definately not in question. The declining population, declining school enrollment, and non optimal economic conditions in Ely is well understood by all. The fact that the Taconite industry has contributed GREATLY to the state and local communities specifically is WITHOUT doubt.
The solution to Ely’s problems is or should be up for debate and we would agree with Bill Erzar that it would be best if we all worked together to do so. The belief that Non-Ferrous mining in this region could be the panacea for all ills and will be done in an environmentally safe manner is an unproven unscientific belief and should be open for discussion. We all should demand the mining companies PR and promises be proven scientifically beyond all reasonable doubt. Designing and building a project based on belief, hoping to patch any errors as we go, is a certain recipe for disaster especially in Non-Ferrous mining.