Blame the Mining Act of 1872: that mine was on private land titled from the government. There are thousands of long-abandoned mines out there to be cleaned up, at taxpayer expense.
All as a result of a government giveaway, and gobbled up by corporate giants.
Some of us remember how bad they were. $5 years ago in Maine the rivers ran green, red, yellow- all from paper making and leather tanning.
The companies all “went out of business”.
That meant they they bankrupted the Maine companies and reopened in the South with lower taxes and less regulation.Until the EPA caught up to them. Some regs at least.
Toxic gold may not be blood diamonds, but yes buyers share the blame. The methods make the gold cheaper for the mining company to extract, unless we make them pay for cleanup.
DagNabbit: gold mining today is mostly huge machines moving large amounts of ore to cyanide heap leach operations, to get tiny amounts of gold out per ton of ore. Generally, salaries are good for within their communities, but the long-term (as in essentially forever) costs of the operations, cost the taxpayer, and posterity, far more.
The way the law works, for the EPA to designate a site as a superfund site, they first have to find a responsible party and bring a lawsuit to force them to pay. The government pays when that effort runs its course. Naturally it often takes years and years. Of the thousands of abandoned mines that need clean up in Colorado (I live here), most of the ownership is long gone. In a large number of cases, the current property owners have had nothing to do with mining. The miners simply extracted the minerals, sold the product, and moved on.
On a more hopeful note for this spill, the river is not naturally acidic. Its ph is neutral, so the mud containing toxic metals will not be likely to leach out into the water. Come springtime, when the snow melts, the water will flush the remaining mud from around the rocks and crevices on the river bottom.
Sometimes, a cartoon IS worth a thousand words. I’m disgusted that the psychotic “conservatives” jump on this as a reason to … get rid of the EPA. Do they think all that poison is going to magically disappear? Apparently, yes. Out of sight (unreported), out of mind.
Those are all great posts DagNabbit. I am considered a troll because I don’t agree with our liberal comic afficionados. What is hilarious is they accuse me of only doing this to collect $0.35 per post. I guess I’m missing out on big money with my 680 posts over 5 years! What a bunch of maroons!
I am considered a troll by most liberal posters here because I disagee with them. I know you have not ever accused me of that. I typically read your posts completely and over again because I respect your point of view even if I don’t agree 100% of the time.-You find my post dispicable, but won’t say why. It has to be because I “dared” to mention a President’s daughter’s name. I only mentioned the name after our President used his daughter’s name in some (possibly made up) scenario to further his agenda while no media outlet calls him out on it. I am fed up with politicians of any party using their children but crying foul if anyone else mentions them. I hope Michelle put him in his place for his silly statement.-I have always noted Marten’s “post” positions, and believe me I am also “fed up” (maybe not for the exact same reasons).
RabbitDad over 8 years ago
Imagine how bad this and other rivers in the US would be if there were no EPA.
Dtroutma over 8 years ago
Blame the Mining Act of 1872: that mine was on private land titled from the government. There are thousands of long-abandoned mines out there to be cleaned up, at taxpayer expense.
All as a result of a government giveaway, and gobbled up by corporate giants.
JohnHarry Premium Member over 8 years ago
Some of us remember how bad they were. $5 years ago in Maine the rivers ran green, red, yellow- all from paper making and leather tanning.
The companies all “went out of business”.
That meant they they bankrupted the Maine companies and reopened in the South with lower taxes and less regulation.Until the EPA caught up to them. Some regs at least.
JohnHarry Premium Member over 8 years ago
Sorry – that’s 45
ChukLitl Premium Member over 8 years ago
Toxic gold may not be blood diamonds, but yes buyers share the blame. The methods make the gold cheaper for the mining company to extract, unless we make them pay for cleanup.
Dtroutma over 8 years ago
DagNabbit: gold mining today is mostly huge machines moving large amounts of ore to cyanide heap leach operations, to get tiny amounts of gold out per ton of ore. Generally, salaries are good for within their communities, but the long-term (as in essentially forever) costs of the operations, cost the taxpayer, and posterity, far more.
SpicyNacho Premium Member over 8 years ago
No, I am ashamed of my President who uses his young children to help further his agenda. What a disgusting excuse of a man he is.
38lowell over 8 years ago
Hey Arizona,Here it comes!
twclix over 8 years ago
The way the law works, for the EPA to designate a site as a superfund site, they first have to find a responsible party and bring a lawsuit to force them to pay. The government pays when that effort runs its course. Naturally it often takes years and years. Of the thousands of abandoned mines that need clean up in Colorado (I live here), most of the ownership is long gone. In a large number of cases, the current property owners have had nothing to do with mining. The miners simply extracted the minerals, sold the product, and moved on.
On a more hopeful note for this spill, the river is not naturally acidic. Its ph is neutral, so the mud containing toxic metals will not be likely to leach out into the water. Come springtime, when the snow melts, the water will flush the remaining mud from around the rocks and crevices on the river bottom.
Cerabooge over 8 years ago
Sometimes, a cartoon IS worth a thousand words. I’m disgusted that the psychotic “conservatives” jump on this as a reason to … get rid of the EPA. Do they think all that poison is going to magically disappear? Apparently, yes. Out of sight (unreported), out of mind.
SpicyNacho Premium Member over 8 years ago
Those are all great posts DagNabbit. I am considered a troll because I don’t agree with our liberal comic afficionados. What is hilarious is they accuse me of only doing this to collect $0.35 per post. I guess I’m missing out on big money with my 680 posts over 5 years! What a bunch of maroons!
SpicyNacho Premium Member over 8 years ago
I am considered a troll by most liberal posters here because I disagee with them. I know you have not ever accused me of that. I typically read your posts completely and over again because I respect your point of view even if I don’t agree 100% of the time.-You find my post dispicable, but won’t say why. It has to be because I “dared” to mention a President’s daughter’s name. I only mentioned the name after our President used his daughter’s name in some (possibly made up) scenario to further his agenda while no media outlet calls him out on it. I am fed up with politicians of any party using their children but crying foul if anyone else mentions them. I hope Michelle put him in his place for his silly statement.-I have always noted Marten’s “post” positions, and believe me I am also “fed up” (maybe not for the exact same reasons).
38lowell over 8 years ago
How far down the river, is the contaminated water now?