fowledup
Silver Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2013
- Messages
- 2,757
- Reaction score
- 5,163
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- Northern California
- Detector(s) used
- Whites GMT V/SAT
- Primary Interest:
- Prospecting
This is something I put together a while ago but didn't do anything with it, enlight of some of the recent topics of discussion I think it maybe helpful or shed some light, I don't know. Please feel free to fact check, dispute or what have ya. Something I feel I need to bring to the front and feel needs to be kept in everyones mind as they read this, is that the majority of what I wrote about are Mercury Mines, and naturally occuring Mercury sites NOT Gold Mines. Most importantly I am not down playing or suggesting that Mercury is not dangerous or harmful to humans. I guess my point is that the effects of Mercury and our fear of it, not unlike Tobacco use, is more about money than public health. We know Tobacco use is bad, but there is more money to be made killing folks with it, hence it being perfectly legal to ingest. On the flip side we also know Mercury is bad, but history tells us it may not be having the effect that the folks making millions off of it and the fear of it would have us believe.
When it comes to Mercury, California has at one time or another held many titles- largest number of mercury mines (USGS estimates 500-2000), largest producer of Mercury, largest user, biggest abuser, largest Mercury contaminated body of water in the west (Clear Lake), Worst cases of mercury related mine leakage (Idria, Sulphur Bank and Almaden), most contaminated Watersheds and on it goes. What it does not have is the largest database of case history for Mercury poisoning, “Minamata disease, or Mercury contaminated fish consumption related illness, or fatalities. Why not? It’s common knowledge that Mercury is a dangerous toxic element harmful to humans, and especially so when turned into Methylmercury. But how bad is it? Might it be there are other factors in play, naturally occurring elements and processes making it less dangerous to us then we would be led to believe? Could it be that the Fear Mongering about Mercury is more about getting funding than public health and welfare? The vast majority of articles written about Mercury include the qualifying suppositions; could, can, may, if, might? Based on the proposed dangers, one would think the articles and reports would be overwhelmed with words like; does, will, is, shall, or has. Search the web, call your State Public Health Department, the National CDC, or Poison Control Centers of America. There is a severe lack of documentation. California has a 166 year history of producing, using, and abusing Mercury. Why do we not have volumes of case studies showing the effects on Gold Miners, Mercury Miners, and their families? These folks weren’t simply exposed to microscopic tidbits from a bite of fish now and then, it was a significant part of their lives. The Gold rush era miners used it daily as a tool for their work, submerging their arms, hands, and feet in it processing the gold. They and they're families lived on site at the mines. Thousands of Mercury Miners, not gold miners ingested and handled it while working deep in the earth extracting it. An astute individual applying a little common sense might conclude that after 166 years we should have a ton of concrete evidence showing clusters, epidemics, or stories and reports of people getting sick or dying from Mercury poisoning. But we don’t, why is that? There are countless journals, personal accounts and volumes of detailed stories about the Goldrush era, where are the accounts on the effects of the mercury use.
Earlier I suggested it may be a case of Fear Mongering for profit, let the reader decide; One concerned and caring “environmental” organization has received millions of dollars in taxpayer funding to suction dredge one body of water in the Motherlode country. Ironically it needs to be brought to attention that the same organization wrote the legislation for the current suction dredge moratorium, banning the use of motorized suction dredge equipment. Guess that is one way to deal with the competition. With the passing of Proposition 1, they are set up to receive millions more. There hope and goal is to recover a mere 150 lbs of Mercury during a three to five year project. It should be pointed out that as much as 6 million pounds of Mercury released during the gold rush have yet to be recovered. Remember these figures, they are important- One single body of water and 150 pounds of Mercury in 3-5 years out of millions of pounds and hundreds of sites! Starting to do the math, and subsequent future profit margins? The completion date of this project was slated for December 2014. As of this date the project has not gone into “production” mode and the reservoir is no where near remediated. The project is being used as an on site demonstration piece showing the projects viability and a means of seeking further funding. However, the further funding part does seem to be doing quite well at this time.
California has the most contaminated waterways and largest number of Mercury Mine sites in North America. One of those, the New Idria in San Benito operated for 120 years and closed in 1972. It is considered to be one of the worst. Finally in September of 2011 it became a superfund site. Some interesting facts about the New Idria; the EPA estimated that flowing at a rate of 40 gallons per minute from the mine site, 21 million gallons of contaminated water per year flow into the nearby creek which flows into the San Joaquin river and eventually flows into the San Francisco Bay Delta distributing 700lbs of Mercury annually into the Delta. The San Francisco Bay Delta provides ⅔ of the state’s drinking water. Another mine the Almaden with a rich Mercury history lies 12 miles south of downtown San Jose, it has been “cleaned” and is now an urban park. Clear lake, the most naturally occuring Mercury contaminated body of water on the West Coast also feeds a watershed that finds it’s way to the Delta. Right now there are currently around a dozen major Mercury clean up efforts going on in the state out of a thousand plus conataminated sites..
I have the following questions:
> Is the danger to the public as real as "they" would have us believe or is it “fear mongering for funding”?
> Why is there not a comprehensive historical database on Mercury illness or fatalities in California?
> If our water supply and health is in as much danger as the "environmentalists" would have us believe, why are there only a dozen or so clean up efforts out of thousands of sites across the state?
> Are the clean ups warranted where they are happening, are we remediating those sites posing the biggest threat to our drinking water?
> Are the organizations receiving our tax money qualified and experienced or simply creating a new “green” source of revenue for themselves?
> What are the best management and industry standards and practices for Mercury cleanup, are they being applied?
> What does the research show concerning alternative methods such as non-invasive, non-destructive Selenium treatments?
> Why are we not doing more to promote Public Mercury education and collection programs like we do with waste CFL’s and burnt Fluorescent tubes?
> According to the aforementioned environmentalist organization receiving public funding for a Mercury remediation, project using a Suction Dredge, Suction Dredge technology is the most efficient means of recovering Mercury. Current test data appears to support this as well, so why are we not lifting the current moratorium on Suction Dredging?
> Why are we not promoting and developing grassroots remediation incentive programs using the large volunteert workforce of small scale Miners and prospectors to remove the Mercury and clean up the state's waterways? Who better, more experienced, or well equipped to deal with a mining problem than the miners themselves?
When it comes to Mercury, California has at one time or another held many titles- largest number of mercury mines (USGS estimates 500-2000), largest producer of Mercury, largest user, biggest abuser, largest Mercury contaminated body of water in the west (Clear Lake), Worst cases of mercury related mine leakage (Idria, Sulphur Bank and Almaden), most contaminated Watersheds and on it goes. What it does not have is the largest database of case history for Mercury poisoning, “Minamata disease, or Mercury contaminated fish consumption related illness, or fatalities. Why not? It’s common knowledge that Mercury is a dangerous toxic element harmful to humans, and especially so when turned into Methylmercury. But how bad is it? Might it be there are other factors in play, naturally occurring elements and processes making it less dangerous to us then we would be led to believe? Could it be that the Fear Mongering about Mercury is more about getting funding than public health and welfare? The vast majority of articles written about Mercury include the qualifying suppositions; could, can, may, if, might? Based on the proposed dangers, one would think the articles and reports would be overwhelmed with words like; does, will, is, shall, or has. Search the web, call your State Public Health Department, the National CDC, or Poison Control Centers of America. There is a severe lack of documentation. California has a 166 year history of producing, using, and abusing Mercury. Why do we not have volumes of case studies showing the effects on Gold Miners, Mercury Miners, and their families? These folks weren’t simply exposed to microscopic tidbits from a bite of fish now and then, it was a significant part of their lives. The Gold rush era miners used it daily as a tool for their work, submerging their arms, hands, and feet in it processing the gold. They and they're families lived on site at the mines. Thousands of Mercury Miners, not gold miners ingested and handled it while working deep in the earth extracting it. An astute individual applying a little common sense might conclude that after 166 years we should have a ton of concrete evidence showing clusters, epidemics, or stories and reports of people getting sick or dying from Mercury poisoning. But we don’t, why is that? There are countless journals, personal accounts and volumes of detailed stories about the Goldrush era, where are the accounts on the effects of the mercury use.
Earlier I suggested it may be a case of Fear Mongering for profit, let the reader decide; One concerned and caring “environmental” organization has received millions of dollars in taxpayer funding to suction dredge one body of water in the Motherlode country. Ironically it needs to be brought to attention that the same organization wrote the legislation for the current suction dredge moratorium, banning the use of motorized suction dredge equipment. Guess that is one way to deal with the competition. With the passing of Proposition 1, they are set up to receive millions more. There hope and goal is to recover a mere 150 lbs of Mercury during a three to five year project. It should be pointed out that as much as 6 million pounds of Mercury released during the gold rush have yet to be recovered. Remember these figures, they are important- One single body of water and 150 pounds of Mercury in 3-5 years out of millions of pounds and hundreds of sites! Starting to do the math, and subsequent future profit margins? The completion date of this project was slated for December 2014. As of this date the project has not gone into “production” mode and the reservoir is no where near remediated. The project is being used as an on site demonstration piece showing the projects viability and a means of seeking further funding. However, the further funding part does seem to be doing quite well at this time.
California has the most contaminated waterways and largest number of Mercury Mine sites in North America. One of those, the New Idria in San Benito operated for 120 years and closed in 1972. It is considered to be one of the worst. Finally in September of 2011 it became a superfund site. Some interesting facts about the New Idria; the EPA estimated that flowing at a rate of 40 gallons per minute from the mine site, 21 million gallons of contaminated water per year flow into the nearby creek which flows into the San Joaquin river and eventually flows into the San Francisco Bay Delta distributing 700lbs of Mercury annually into the Delta. The San Francisco Bay Delta provides ⅔ of the state’s drinking water. Another mine the Almaden with a rich Mercury history lies 12 miles south of downtown San Jose, it has been “cleaned” and is now an urban park. Clear lake, the most naturally occuring Mercury contaminated body of water on the West Coast also feeds a watershed that finds it’s way to the Delta. Right now there are currently around a dozen major Mercury clean up efforts going on in the state out of a thousand plus conataminated sites..
I have the following questions:
> Is the danger to the public as real as "they" would have us believe or is it “fear mongering for funding”?
> Why is there not a comprehensive historical database on Mercury illness or fatalities in California?
> If our water supply and health is in as much danger as the "environmentalists" would have us believe, why are there only a dozen or so clean up efforts out of thousands of sites across the state?
> Are the clean ups warranted where they are happening, are we remediating those sites posing the biggest threat to our drinking water?
> Are the organizations receiving our tax money qualified and experienced or simply creating a new “green” source of revenue for themselves?
> What are the best management and industry standards and practices for Mercury cleanup, are they being applied?
> What does the research show concerning alternative methods such as non-invasive, non-destructive Selenium treatments?
> Why are we not doing more to promote Public Mercury education and collection programs like we do with waste CFL’s and burnt Fluorescent tubes?
> According to the aforementioned environmentalist organization receiving public funding for a Mercury remediation, project using a Suction Dredge, Suction Dredge technology is the most efficient means of recovering Mercury. Current test data appears to support this as well, so why are we not lifting the current moratorium on Suction Dredging?
> Why are we not promoting and developing grassroots remediation incentive programs using the large volunteert workforce of small scale Miners and prospectors to remove the Mercury and clean up the state's waterways? Who better, more experienced, or well equipped to deal with a mining problem than the miners themselves?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
?? Especially from creek or river water. As pointed out yes we are removing elemental mercury before it bio converts....and the typical creeks we dredge don't support the existence of methylmercury.
