Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Research Biologist Explains Mercury


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#1 Mightyb

Mightyb

    Copper Member

  • Nugget Shooter Members
  • Pip
  • 58 posts

Posted 02 January 2010 - 10:37 PM

Mercury occurs in several different geochemical forms, including elemental mercury, ionic (or oxidized) mercury, and a suite of organic forms, the most important of which is methylmercury. Methylmercury is the form most readily incorporated into biological tissues and is most toxic to humans. The process of mercury removal by suction dredging does not contaminate the environment because small-scale suction dredging removes elemental mercury. Removal of elemental mercury before it can be converted, by bacteria, to methylmercury is a very important component of environmental and human health protection provided as a secondary benefit of suction dredging..

Read Full Article

#2 HighPlainsSifter

HighPlainsSifter

    10 Karat Gold Member

  • Nugget Shooter Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexamerica
  • Interests:http://www.securetheborder.org/read-the-law/

Posted 02 January 2010 - 10:49 PM

Here too is the PDF study. This has already been introduced though as it was released in June of 2009. But please also read the first paragraph of this study...and I qoute:

"I make this declarationto supplement the first and second ones filed May 17th 2005 and January 10th 2006."

So as you can see these findings and the publication of these findings were well before the stoppage of the dredging. It would seem that scientific proof has little or no weight in the decision also.

Here is the link of the full study.
http://www.goldgold....tion-Greene.pdf

I am sure that the PLP and even OGM and Eldorado already knew that this study has not helped in this fight?
Please allow me to add that this would also seem to back up Eldorado's contention that this issue has nothing to do with Fish, Mercury or anything but Politics.

THESE are the times that try men's souls.
The Crisis
By Thomas Paine


#3 visitorbedrock bob_*

visitorbedrock bob_*
  • The Guests

Posted 02 January 2010 - 11:02 PM

Yup, microbes on the bottom produce methylene (alchohols) that react with elemental mercury and make methyl mercury. Elemental mercury is the "precursor" so to speak. Now, methyl mercury is usually less of a problem in moving water than in a lake environment, but still, when you have the presence of mercury on a lake or river bottom, it is being slowly transformed to methyl mercury...one of the worst compunds for the environment!

On one hand mining gave us the mercury in the first place, and that is bad. On the other, dredging would not only trap (some of) the elemental mercury and remove it, but would turn the bottom over and not allow the microbial transformation of the mercury to methyl mercury. Clearly, dredging slows the natural metabolism of mercury in an aquatic environment and is often used to remediate mercury contaminated water where elemental mercury is a problem.

There should be no argument that dredgers would take out much more mercury (some) than they would bring in (none) and improve the situation where mercury is concerned.

But is that an issue here? I thought we were chasing the elusive salmon?

Bob

#4 visitorbedrock bob_*

visitorbedrock bob_*
  • The Guests

Posted 02 January 2010 - 11:51 PM

Mercury occurs in several different geochemical forms, including elemental mercury, ionic (or oxidized) mercury, and a suite of organic forms, the most important of which is methylmercury. Methylmercury is the form most readily incorporated into biological tissues and is most toxic to humans. The process of mercury removal by suction dredging does not contaminate the environment because small-scale suction dredging removes elemental mercury. Removal of elemental mercury before it can be converted, by bacteria, to methylmercury is a very important component of environmental and human health protection provided as a secondary benefit of suction dredging..

Read Full Article


I like your link Mightyb! There is an interesting paragraph righ below the one that you cut and pasted...

"The issue against suction dredge operations in the streams of the United States appears to be less an issue of environmental protection and more of an issue of certain organized individuals and groups being unwilling to share the outdoors with others without like interests."

I believe this hits the nail right on the head.

This article is a good read! It really puts things in perspective. Lots of good numbers and data to think about too.

Bob

#5 HighPlainsSifter

HighPlainsSifter

    10 Karat Gold Member

  • Nugget Shooter Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexamerica
  • Interests:http://www.securetheborder.org/read-the-law/

Posted 03 January 2010 - 12:02 AM

I like your link Mightyb! There is an interesting paragraph righ below the one that you cut and pasted...

"The issue against suction dredge operations in the streams of the United States appears to be less an issue of environmental protection and more of an issue of certain organized individuals and groups being unwilling to share the outdoors with others without like interests."

I believe this hits the nail right on the head.

This article is a good read! It really puts things in perspective. Lots of good numbers and data to think about too.

Bob


So Bob.....these "oraganized individuals"....they have organized not only within themselves, but with other like minded organizations right?
Hmmm...it would seem that the Benefits of organizing and using the power of other organizations is working to their benefit...hmmm....I think someone has been saying that all along. Perhaps not.......hmmm

THESE are the times that try men's souls.
The Crisis
By Thomas Paine


#6 GotGold

GotGold

    10 Karat Gold Member

  • Nugget Shooter Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 476 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rancho Cucamonga, CA

Posted 03 January 2010 - 03:46 AM

I like your link Mightyb! There is an interesting paragraph righ below the one that you cut and pasted...

"The issue against suction dredge operations in the streams of the United States appears to be less an issue of environmental protection and more of an issue of certain organized individuals and groups being unwilling to share the outdoors with others without like interests."

I believe this hits the nail right on the head.

This article is a good read! It really puts things in perspective. Lots of good numbers and data to think about too.


Didn’t you say in so many words that the dredgers / miners were NOT organized, and they need to attach their interests in a political manner with organized groups having influence, money and power?

So if the dredgers / miners are NOT organized, who do you think the author of this paper is referring to…..surely Not the miners!

As to the unwillingness to share comment made by the author and your comment “ this hits the nail on the head”…..I take that to mean that you’re pointing your finger at the dredgers /miners here!

And yes I’m well aware of the laws behind unpatented and patented mining claims and what the general public can and cannot do on an unpatented mining claim on public land. A patented mining claim is private property period.

As to the mercury issue presented by ‘Mightyb’, (thanks Mb) may I suggest Bob, that you concentrate your research on news releases by the Karuks, Sierra Fund, Sierra Club and everyone of the supporters on the SB670 issue. Try at your own expense or hand in finding the individuals supporting these claims. Craig Tucker has always had some great talking points…..hummm since you seem to know a bit about mercury, I may just do the same using a different approach.

Bob you well know that everything, to include the “kitchen sink,” was thrown at the dredgers / miners on the SB670 issue from all of the supporting groups to which you are a member of one, the Sierra Club. This 'rally' cry of yours is beyond "old"…..why should the dredgers / miners hoist a flag on the same doorstep of SB670 supporters, when those same supporters used language of “would”, “could”, “might”, etc. without proof when fact was presented. It really makes one wonder how many of those same “supporters” have friends on the inside that perform these EIS studies to the benefit of the supporting parties. Politics, Money and Power, gee I forgot!

BTW, the PLP addressed this SB670 issue long before your comment of now doing “damage control” with their lawsuit. And, do you really think for one minute any person having factual common sense would organize with those spouting Would , Could, Might and May Etc…..hell lets call that a new one, the WCMME Club!

Gary
<!--coloro:red--><!--/coloro--><!--sizeo:3--><!--/sizeo--><!--fonto:Arial--><!--/fonto-->
______GotGold______<!--sizec--><!--/sizec-->
<!--sizeo:1--><!--/sizeo-->Mines And Minerals v1.0
www.HystWare.com
<!--sizec-->
<!--/sizec--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--fontc--><!--/fontc-->

#7 visitorbedrock bob_*

visitorbedrock bob_*
  • The Guests

Posted 03 January 2010 - 09:48 AM

Didn’t you say in so many words that the dredgers / miners were NOT organized, and they need to attach their interests in a political manner with organized groups having influence, money and power?

So if the dredgers / miners are NOT organized, who do you think the author of this paper is referring to…..surely Not the miners!

As to the unwillingness to share comment made by the author and your comment “ this hits the nail on the head”…..I take that to mean that you’re pointing your finger at the dredgers /miners here!

And yes I’m well aware of the laws behind unpatented and patented mining claims and what the general public can and cannot do on an unpatented mining claim on public land. A patented mining claim is private property period.

As to the mercury issue presented by ‘Mightyb’, (thanks Mb) may I suggest Bob, that you concentrate your research on news releases by the Karuks, Sierra Fund, Sierra Club and everyone of the supporters on the SB670 issue. Try at your own expense or hand in finding the individuals supporting these claims. Craig Tucker has always had some great talking points…..hummm since you seem to know a bit about mercury, I may just do the same using a different approach.

Bob you well know that everything, to include the “kitchen sink,” was thrown at the dredgers / miners on the SB670 issue from all of the supporting groups to which you are a member of one, the Sierra Club. This 'rally' cry of yours is beyond "old"…..why should the dredgers / miners hoist a flag on the same doorstep of SB670 supporters, when those same supporters used language of “would”, “could”, “might”, etc. without proof when fact was presented. It really makes one wonder how many of those same “supporters” have friends on the inside that perform these EIS studies to the benefit of the supporting parties. Politics, Money and Power, gee I forgot!

BTW, the PLP addressed this SB670 issue long before your comment of now doing “damage control” with their lawsuit. And, do you really think for one minute any person having factual common sense would organize with those spouting Would , Could, Might and May Etc…..hell lets call that a new one, the WCMME Club!

Gary


Wow Gary. We all knew you couldnt write and now you have proved you cant read. You are wrong on about every point, and I was very plain. The article is a good one and supports scientific fact. You are trying to fight when there is no fight again.

Do you have a button that we could turn you off? Or at least silence you? You are definitely charging at windmills here and I am afraid you are going to get hurt! I am 100% behind the prospectors and always have been...I keep trying to tell you that and you keep getting stuck on the fact that I am a member of the Sierra Club. Do you not realize that there are people out there that call them like they see them rather than stick to a party line? Evidently not.

Gary, calm down. Leave me alone. Let me comment and try your best to make sense out of it. If you cant, just PM me and I will explain it to you.

Bob

#8 visitorbedrock bob_*

visitorbedrock bob_*
  • The Guests

Posted 03 January 2010 - 09:52 AM

Gary, I DID share the comment by the author...and it hit the nail on the head. The quote was the comment...you know...between the """" marks...but then you can click on the link and read it yourself if you like. The link is there too, just click and read the article that I am agreeing with and it might clear it up for you.

#9 Mightyb

Mightyb

    Copper Member

  • Nugget Shooter Members
  • Pip
  • 58 posts

Posted 03 January 2010 - 10:23 AM

In my opinion, the sb 670 urgency status was allegedly because of the mercury subject. And the legislators were lied to about the science, and they believed the lies. So who told these legislators about the science of Gold Dredging, I really want to know who! Because they were wrong. And need to educated with the facts. Was it a lobbyist. Who could have been so misinformed as to actually believe these lies. Don't these people have integrity or a conscience.

Sorry, I'm still mad about this issue.

http://www.goldfinds.com

#10 Micro Nugget

Micro Nugget

    Platinum Member

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,565 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southern California
  • Interests:Finding gold, forensic crime scene metallic evidence, coins, relics & rocks.

Posted 03 January 2010 - 10:37 AM

A related logic occasionally expressed by anti-dredgers consists of assertions that dredging "flours" Hg and that this floured mercury then becomes methylized. No one, to my knowledge, ever has demonstrated that the operation of a suction dredge "in fact" flours Hg. Flouring Hg refers to the breaking up of elemental mercury into microscopic droplets. Rather, it is a theory that yet awaits valid testing -- albeit an unlikely one. I say this because Hg has a specific gravity of around 13, i.e., 13 times heavier than water. Thus, it would take an enormous velocity differential for water to overcome elemental Hg's natural tendency to clump together. I also say this because of a related physics principle -- coalescence [a natural force that draws liquid particles together]. As children many of us older dudes may have experienced this phenomenon after dropping a mercury thermometer on a hard surface and splattering the silvery stuff. When pushed together with a fingertip the mercury droplets formed into a larger and larger drop until it all was "coalesced". Thus, since a dredge is most effective when operated in a way to maximize laminar flow [avoiding swirls and minimizing turbulence in the riffle tray], the tendency of the water flow would seem to favor coalescence of floured mercury into larger and larger concentrations rather than the other way around. I first heard this anti-dredging "flouring" argument expressed at a public forum I participated in, noticed by the California Water Board in Sacramento about three years ago. It was expressed by a recently minted PhD young lady who did not look like she had any actual experience working with a dredge. But her remarks seemed to bask in the reflected glory of her academic title. There is no doubt that floured mercury exists in many of California's rivers. Likely due to the rock churning of high velocity run-off events. Whatever the actual cause or causes of flouring, dredges IN FACT are documented to be effective REMOVERS of Hg. The big point here being that every gram of Hg removed from the river is one less gram to endanger the aquatic environment even if a tiny percentage does slip back into the river.
Martin WSPA#5

Prospecting success, be it for HEARTS, TRUTH or GOLD, takes COURAGE and HONESTY to penetrate through the appearance of things, plus PATIENCE and FORTITUDE to work through the many layers of things of which both nature and human nature are composed.

#11 HighPlainsSifter

HighPlainsSifter

    10 Karat Gold Member

  • Nugget Shooter Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexamerica
  • Interests:http://www.securetheborder.org/read-the-law/

Posted 03 January 2010 - 11:06 AM

I fail to understand why this thread turned away from the subject matter and once again turned to the Sierra Club. I thought we established that one person liked/belonged to the Sierra Club and that everyone else hated them? This thread was started by MightyB and was talking about the Mercury study, wasnt it?

Is someone talking out their Avatar again?

The thread is about the Study and how the study states that Dredgers actually help rid the streams and creeks of the Mercury left by the Big Mining operation in the past. It has also been established that this same study was released a now total of 3 times before the Moratorium on dredging and has not been able to help the dredgers. That too has been established, correct?

Lets all agree that turning this thread away from its intent (like so many other threads), really serves no purpose, other than an attempt at furthering personal dislikes of other forum members. Its most unproductive and really takes away from the main points of any thread introduced about this subject matter.

Lets also all agree that while we are all prospectors in different states and use different techniques to find the metal we all search for, we all want to see anyone that wants to Prospect in any manner, be able to do just that.


"In my opinion, the sb 670 urgency status was allegedly because of the mercury subject. And the legislators were lied to about the science, and they believed the lies. So who told these legislators about the science of Gold Dredging, I really want to know who! Because they were wrong. And need to educated with the facts. Was it a lobbyist. Who could have been so misinformed as to actually believe these lies. Don't these people have integrity or a conscience."

"Sorry, I'm still mad about this issue."


Now that is a discussion worthy MightyB.....but as the aforementioned study was released 3 times to no avail, is it really a question of lying or is it a question that the weight of the study did not outweigh the political gains of those that stand for and lobby for SB670? I would ask, why were the "facts" about dredging ignored and the decision made? In this situation once again the scenario would lean more towards Eldorado's belief that the issue really has nothing to do with Mercury or Fish or anything else in the scientific realm. That it is a Political issue, backed up by hatred for past transgressions.

IMHO, I truly agree with this analogy. But I disagree with the limited methods used to fight this ban. I feel that (addressing Sean C's comment here too), that the PLP and all interested parties that DO NOT support SB 670, should not only take the high road, but take ALL ROADS to victory.
1. The legal work done by the PLP should continue on the Constitutional standings.
2. The reporting of those Constitutional standings should continue to be reported on and supported by the likes of OGM and others.
But other key items should be added to the agenda of defeating SB 670.
1. Garnering more support country wide. If anyone thinks that a victory by the supporters will end in California, just doesnt have a clue. This could move to Oregon, Washington and any other state. Legal precedent is being set in California for the entire country!
2. Getting the Media involved. Bring the abbrogation of a groups Constitutional rights to all Americans, can only help when it is coupled with the facts of the issue.

In the end, lets all agree that we are all NOT supporters of SB 670 and want to see any and everyone that wants to be a prospector for Gold/Silver/Minerals, both professionally and as a Hobbyist, be able to do so, with very limited Governmental intervention. Can we at least agree on that?

THESE are the times that try men's souls.
The Crisis
By Thomas Paine


#12 Mightyb

Mightyb

    Copper Member

  • Nugget Shooter Members
  • Pip
  • 58 posts

Posted 03 January 2010 - 11:17 AM

Micro Nugget

Yes, I agree with you. Anyway, just because someone has a PHD does not make them good at what they do in their chosen subject.

I hope the Judge decides to hear the court case, as the facts will be revealed. Or the Judge may have enough facts to just issue an injuction on SB 670 and rule DFG must issue permits, or require another dept or even a fed agency to issue dredge permits. And they can still continue to review the existing regulation. But it is a wate of tax payers money. The existing regulation are more than sufficient.

Mightyb1
http://www.goldfinds.com

#13 Mightyb

Mightyb

    Copper Member

  • Nugget Shooter Members
  • Pip
  • 58 posts

Posted 03 January 2010 - 11:26 AM

HighPlainsSifter

Very well said. This has been a learning experience for me and I'm still learning about the polictics and science behind this biased and unfair bill.

#14 visitorbedrock bob_*

visitorbedrock bob_*
  • The Guests

Posted 03 January 2010 - 12:13 PM

I believe that you will find that disturbing does "flour" the particles of mercury somewhat. You cand disturb it without dashing some of those particles to tiny bits. We all know what a mess it will make in a pan even after you have got out all of the "blobs"... Certainly you will take some out with a dredge and also make some smaller. The questionb would be overall effect and only a fair and impartial study would yield that answer. I am not sure that this can be done. Studies funded by enviro groups will tell a different tale than those funded by dredging groups. Neither are objective. I honestly dont think that a dredge would "flour" any more mercury than one of those monster floods that send big house sized boulders clunking along MILES of river. You just couldnt imagine alll the dredging in the world being even close to that.

I do know that any vaporization of mercury, even in very small amounts, results in the conndensation of freshly formed microdroplets minus 1 micron in size. These are what is so dangerous to inhale, and will readilly convert to methyl mercury if the conditions are right. Even just a few micrtoscopic particles are lethal if they immediately come in contact with your skin after conversion...Now that is highly unlikely. I am firmly convinced that ANY uncontrolled vaporization of mercury is bad, ezpecially in a populated area. It may not really make that much difference immediately, but over a period of small relaeses by various individuals it WILL eventually cause a problem...just like radiation will. Small droplets ARE a concern no matter the minuscle amount.

Bob

#15 Mightyb

Mightyb

    Copper Member

  • Nugget Shooter Members
  • Pip
  • 58 posts

Posted 03 January 2010 - 12:58 PM

Carbon Monoxide from a car will kill a human in a matter of minutes, why doesn't the CA Legislature ban all gas burning engines in CA.

Bob, I'm not sure I totally agree with you. So you are saying Elemental mercury will suspend in cold water? I don't think it will.

#16 Sean.C

Sean.C

    Copper Member

  • Nugget Shooter Members
  • Pip
  • 85 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southern Oregon
  • Interests:Fishing, Hiking, Gold Prospecting, Anything Outdoors

Posted 03 January 2010 - 02:02 PM

Bob, I feel like you are finally starting to understand whats going on here in regards to the attitudes of our opponents. They want us OUT for good and they don't have a valid reason except blind prejudice. The real reason they don't like dredging is because its noisy, not aesthetically pleasing, and ruins the "Wilderness" feel when they come across a dredger. If you look at any information spread by opponents, about the harmful effects of dredging, you will find it to be highly embellished and opinionated.

On the subject of salmon, you will find that salmon are only present in a fraction of rivers where dredging occurs, with most dredging taking place in waters inaccessible to salmon, due to dams. Even then, it is still regulated to not coincide with spawning season.

Where salmon don't exist, they use the excuse of mercury and wild trout populations. DFG has already stated in public meetings that the formation of methylmercury from "floured" mercury isn't a concern due to the conditions needed. As far as mercury levels during high flow events, you are exactly right. Mercury levels during the winter are significantly higher as opposed to levels barely measurable during summer months. Sediment bed load migration is a naturally occurring event that happens every year in varying degrees of intensity.

As far as organization goes, no doubt, being organized with other groups would help, but it is unlikely that other groups will join with us. The problem here is that the miners represent such a huge minority and practice a very obscure activity, that garnering public support is extremely difficult. 36 million people live in California with at least 2/3rds living in large cities. Most people have no clue that there is gold left in paying quantities, and this is proven by propaganda spread about how dredgers ruin the environment all for "a few specks of gold". Add to this that most other wilderness users are much larger than we are, are not as obscure, and don't like us.

Our opponents don't wish to share and don't wish to compromise. Many miners are also hunters, fishermen, hikers, and general nature enthusiasts but it is not the other way around. We don't mind sharing (HPS this is for you). Miners went through great efforts and compromise in the early 90's (with the same opponents) to get the 1994 EIR done and get solid regulations in place that lasted until now. New regulations suggested by opponents would make dredging impossible.

Many opponent groups have a "Leave No Trace" philosophy that miners clearly don't fit into. We ruin the "Wild and Natural" feel for them because we disturb the ground and it doesn't matter to them if there are harmful effects or not. They don't care. They want us out. The situation is bad for miners.

That being said, despite our own disagreements, we should all do what we can to work together and fight this irrational injustice.

#17 HighPlainsSifter

HighPlainsSifter

    10 Karat Gold Member

  • Nugget Shooter Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexamerica
  • Interests:http://www.securetheborder.org/read-the-law/

Posted 03 January 2010 - 03:12 PM

Sean your analogy of the "Leave no Trace" type of groups is a good one. But I disagree with not at least trying. I am talking about things like setting up an informational website that covers the following items on the Prospectors side:
1. The Constitutionality of it.
2. The repercussions of a permanant ban on dredging to other outdoor activities, (even the Leave no Trace ones).
3. The extended/enhanced regulations that could be created for other outdoor groups, (even the Leave no Trace ones).
4. The dependency of everyone world wide on the metals used/found through all types of Prospecting including dredging.
Many other pieces of information could be contained on this website and the link to this can be sent out nation wide. A single member of a website such as face book can attract 100's of thousands even millions of members. (An example would be Sarah Palin).

There are so many things that can be done on the NON Legal side of the equation for the dredgers/prospectors that is not being done. My frustration is that everytime I have introduced a suggestion such as this, it is met with attacks and even to the point of forum members saying I am in favor of the ban. That can not be any further from the truth.

As a former member of law enforcement and also one that has managed campaigns for those that have had to run for a law enforcement position, I have seen what the "Power of the People" can bring to a cause. In todays age, with instantaneous communication, there is no reason to figuratively and literally scream out to the nation and the world, a cause that is just and tight.

Hell, I am a drywasher and a nugget shooter. Never dredged a day in my life. But I have researched and studied the issue, from all sides. Its a valid and an honorable fight. The dredgers should win, so we all can win as Americans. But no one wins a fight, without pulling everything out of the bag, to throw at the opposition. Especially when its a just cause.

THESE are the times that try men's souls.
The Crisis
By Thomas Paine


#18 Mightyb

Mightyb

    Copper Member

  • Nugget Shooter Members
  • Pip
  • 58 posts

Posted 03 January 2010 - 03:47 PM

Good suggestions HPS.

#19 visitorbedrock bob_*

visitorbedrock bob_*
  • The Guests

Posted 03 January 2010 - 04:15 PM

Carbon Monoxide from a car will kill a human in a matter of minutes, why doesn't the CA Legislature ban all gas burning engines in CA.

Bob, I'm not sure I totally agree with you. So you are saying Elemental mercury will suspend in cold water? I don't think it will.


You are right about carbon monoxide being a killer, but carbon monoxide dissapates in the air pretty rapidly. Mercury does not. Carbon Monoxide kills every day in Mexico City, and there are strict regulations on it, just like mercury, almost everywhere in the world.

Heavy metals are slow poisons. It lingers in a spot and in a populatiuon. Just like Leadville, Colorado or Organ, New Mexico...Heavy metals get into the food chain through the water, air, and the plants absorbing it through the ground. A hundred years later the folks that live there are giving birth to babies with no spinal cord, or no skull bone. That is why it is important in areas with high loads of elemental mercury to be careful and not make the problem worse.

I am not saying that elemental mercury will suspend in cold water. I am saying tiny droplets will come in contact with microorganisms on the riverbed and be converted to methyl mercury. When the drops are tiny more mercury is converted. THis has nothign to do with putting mercury into a solution. We are talking about the productin of metyl mercury. Elemental mercury in a watershed is not good, but mainly because the presence of methyl mercury will be much higher. THe elemental mercury is a "precursor" to methyl mercury. The methyl mercury is what gets around in the food chain and distributes itself from plant to fish to human etc. etc.

The smaller the particle, the more dangerous it is when it comes to mercury. Sure blobs of mercury coallesce into a ball readily, but wheen the drops are micron size and foating in the air (or on the bedrock) they are not going to all just run together. The smaller the particle the more readily it is chemically changed into methyl mercury. Also, elemental mercury is not a huge problem in a blob, but once the particles are small enough to inhale it does not take but a few mollecules and it will poison you. You could swallow a peas sized blob and it would just make you vomit and crap violently for a few hours and not do much else. So size really does matter with mercury.

Sean, I have always understood the attitudes of your opponents I believe. I dont disagree with a thing you are saying. Just because a few keep attacking me and calling me a liberal and an enviro does not make it true. I honestly dont believe dredging causes any problems at all, and I am behind you all the way. I have been mining hard rock and placer all my life. My family has always ranched and mined. I feel that I am pretty familiar with the fight at hand even if it not happening in my back yard (this time). You might forget how many lost their livelihoods, lost their homes, and even went to prison in Arizona and New Mexico in the last 10 years over land use issues. Dredgers and miners are no different than ranchers when it comes to a right to do what you have done for generations. So just because I offer a little different angle does not mean I am against you.

I am guilty of being critical of the narrow mindedness on both sides. Nothing irritates me more than a whining liberal tree hugger that is no brains and all emotion...unless it is a hardball conservative ass hole that is warlike to anyone that does not follow party line in lockstep. The truth is somewhere down the middle road and what is best for the nation, the earth, and all the individuals concerned.

#20 visitorbedrock bob_*

visitorbedrock bob_*
  • The Guests

Posted 03 January 2010 - 06:05 PM

"As far as organization goes, no doubt, being organized with other groups would help, but it is unlikely that other groups will join with us. The problem here is that the miners represent such a huge minority and practice a very obscure activity, that garnering public support is extremely difficult. 36 million people live in California with at least 2/3rds living in large cities. Most people have no clue that there is gold left in paying quantities, and this is proven by propaganda spread about how dredgers ruin the environment all for "a few specks of gold". Add to this that most other wilderness users are much larger than we are, are not as obscure, and don't like us."


Sean, now that I am not having to answer to rapid fire accusations and slander (thank you VERY much!), I would just love to explain what I meant by "joining with other groups".

When I suggested that and got a negative response, I mentioned the Sierra Club as a sarcastic cuggestion and got one HELL of a rise out of the forum! Well, let's back it up a little and figure out how to garner support. The PLP is joining with BUSINESSES to fight this are they not? Keene, Eldorado's Natural Gold Jewelry, and others?

Well are there not other business owners out there that will let you advertise the name of their business as supporters? Molly's Diner in Rancho Culero California will support! So will Joes Body shop in Nalgaville. If there are 3000 dredgers that is one HELL of a web of influence. START A LIST and GET IT IN A REGIONAL NEWSPAPER. It will be FREE ADVERTISING for any business that will allow you to mention their name. Remind them that dredgers buy their meals at their restaraunts. MANY Califaztlan businesses lean heavily on the gold history, SO USE THAT! Give them a two page ad in the Marano Valley News with all of the businesses that OPPOSE the dredge ban. I bet there are a THOUSAND out there that dont know they oppose the ban but are just waiting for someone to explain to them why! All they have to do is say YES and it will appear in a big ad...COOPERATION....GET IT?

Now go one step higher and get a gold prospector that belongs to an ATV club...You say it does not work the other way...Well it DOES! That "crossover" sportsman is liek a seed for your cause! Get a name of the leaders of their organization and have the leaders of YOUR organization PARLAY... Cmmon interests.... The prospectors will support the ATV'ers when they fight closure of roads or extreme regulation and in turn the ATV club will let the prospectors use THEIR name as a supporter of the prospector's causes. WE ARE NOT TALKING DEALS WITH THE DEVIL HERE. WE AINT SUGGESTING SELLING OUR SOUL TO THE SIERRA CLUB. This is just calling some names, making a few contacts, and gettign permission to use the group as a supporter. And again, every one of the examples that you used as a non possibility are the VERY SPOTS to begin.

So that is how to drum up a little support. ANd yes my SIerra Club example was just for "discussion". Get support in your church, get support in your community, and get support from like groups. SELL YOUR CAUSE!

I keep making the analogy that this method is EXACTLY what worked for those "adversarial" groups that everyone gets so upset about. Now why would that very same strategy not be put to use by ALL USERS OF PUBLIC LANDS. Heck, we are all loosing on all fronts and we have no unified organization.

We can let Got Gold name it if he wants to, but hillbilly boys that enjoy the outdoors need to come together for their very survival. Not just prospectors but hunters and fishermen and ATV fellows and all of the others. The voice would be much stronger.

Still, to get support for the dredge ban would be a great cause to start such a movement, no? It is not hard to go out and campaign a little, and two or three competent leaders can organize a very powerful group of men. Heck, just HALF of the dredgers would be 1500 men am I correct? And all I hear is how POWERLESS the miners are and how DIFFICULT and UNLIKELY it is to be a reality. I suppose that unless someone takes an idea and makes it real then it is always impossible.

Thanks for the ear!

Bob




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users