Skip to Content

Support MinnPost

C.A. Arneson

Ely, MN
Commenter for
4 years 50 weeks

Recent Comments

The Iron Range is not Northeastern Minnesota, only one part of it, and it does not include the so-called Duluth Complex. Do you hear anyone proposing to mine iron in the Duluth Complex? Trading the lake country of the Arrowhead for polymetallic (copper-nickel) sulfide mining is sheer stupidity.

Regarding the sulfate standard and iron, Harlan Christensen stated, “Iron makes the difference, and we are talking about the Iron Range, right?” Wrong on multiple levels. Despite the iron he refers to, we currently have huge problems from interactions of sulfate and bacteria in anaerobic sediments of the Iron Range. And technically it is not the amount of iron in our waters but rather the amount of iron in the sediments that can decrease ultimate damage, two different measurements. Also,...

The University of California, Davis, study on iron-reducing bacteria is accessible at this site:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/...

"Figure 4 shows the main sources of mercury in the Lake Superior basin in 2010. Currently, the largest sectors of mercury releases are mining/ metals production and fuel combustion, which together account for 91% of mercury emissions in the basin. Within these two sectors, taconite mines and coal-fired utilities are the largest sources." (Lake Superior Zero Discharge Program and Critical Chemical Reduction Milestones, 2012 Lake Superior Binational Program).

Taconite operations release emissions, and coal-fired utilities power taconite mines. Past and present.

Fear-mongering is the latest buzzword being used by the sulfide mining industry and its supporters, used to divert attention away from the toxic metal poisoning of our children; primarily the result of a taconite industry that does not meet standards. If the grossly underestimated calculations for water flowage, water seepage, and mercury levels discovered in PolyMet’s SDEIS are any indication; the sulfide mining industry is planning to do the same. While PolyMet supporters are busy...

Fear-mongering is the latest buzzword being used by the sulfide mining industry and its supporters, used to divert attention away from the toxic metal poisoning of our children; primarily the result of a taconite industry that does not meet standards. If the grossly underestimated calculations for water flowage, water seepage, and mercury levels discovered in PolyMet’s SDEIS are any indication; the sulfide mining industry is planning to do the same. While PolyMet supporters are busy...

I am against mining that does not meet state standards (none of the operating taconite mines do) and therefore exposes area children to toxins that damage their brains. Does that mean pro-mining folks are for mining that exposes area children to toxins that damage their brains, since none of the pro-mining folks are demanding that the industry clean up its toxic pollution? PolyMet will be more of the same according to its multi-flawed SDEIS.

Posted on 06/21/14 at 03:20 pm in response to Water or sulfide mining: Which is more valuable?

I think you have iron mining and taconite mining confused. Iron did not have the waste that taconite mining does, and therefore was less destructive (at least where it could be seen). Iron mines near Tower and Ely were small underground mines, not open pit taconite mines with huge piles of waste.

No one is talking about the areas where taconite mining has been done as beautiful environments with pure water – Mountain Iron, Virginia, Hibbing, Hoyt Lakes, Eveleth, Chisholm, Babbitt,...

Posted on 03/10/14 at 06:52 pm in response to The Minnesotan's guide to PolyMet's top 10 favorite talking points

Thank you! One of the best!