Sixteen lakes across Canada are set to be quietly reclassified as allowable areas for mines to dump toxic waste. While Canadian law technically disallows chucking harmful substances into fish habitat, lakes can be reclassified as "tailings impoundment areas" under a little-known subsection of mining effluent regulations. With a lake at their disposal (literally), mining companies avoid the cost and trouble of building containment ponds for their muck. Besides, lakes are peachy for waste disposal, says Elizabeth Gardiner of Canada's Mining Association: "[W]ith this kind of topography and this number of natural lakes and depressions and ponds ... in the end it's really the safest option for human health and for the environment."
source: CBC News, The Globe and Mail
Comments
View as Flat
savee419 Posted 7:29 am
17 Jun 2008
No people = No animals! How silly of us to forget!
Permalink
earlysnows Posted 10:18 am
17 Jun 2008
Permalink
Yancy Putney Posted 10:35 am
17 Jun 2008
Contact Elizabeth Gardiner of Canada's Mining Association and let her know what you think. She claims that pristine lakes, ponds, streams and depressions from B.C to Newfoundland are the safest places to dispose of mining generated waste. Raise your voice and together maybe we can stop this madness!
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[24]='\"';l[25]=' 97';l[26]=' 99';l[27]=' 46';l[28]=' 103';l[29]=' 110';l[30]=' 105';l[31]=' 110';l[32]=' 105';l[33]=' 109';l[34]=' 64';l[35]=' 114';l[36]=' 101';l[37]=' 110';l[38]=' 105';l[39]=' 100';l[40]=' 114';l[41]=' 97';l[42]=' 103';l[43]=' 101';l[44]=':';l[45]='o';l[46]='t';l[47]='l';l[48]='i';l[49]='a';l[50]='m';l[51]='\"';l[52]='=';l[53]='f';l[54]='e';l[55]='r';l[56]='h';l[57]='a ';l[58]='
Permalink
brenna Posted 11:26 am
17 Jun 2008
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:37 pm
17 Jun 2008
While the sntiment is appreciated, I doubt the Mining Association really cares. They were the ones who asked for this to begin with, and they probably have a pretty good idea what it means for the environment (and more importantly to 'em, their wallets).
To have a greater impact, I would say contact your local government head, but since the ruling has already been passed...
...then I guess we haveta find a way to reverse it.
And quickly.
Permalink
amc89 Posted 12:55 am
18 Jun 2008
Permalink
jchret Posted 1:13 am
18 Jun 2008
As for action, how about adopting Ontario's Environmental Bill of Rights in more provinces?
I imagine in other places around the world the loss of a lake (when some sort of artificial pond could have been created) would be taken more seriously. Sometimes it sucks having 3 million lakes, it means people care less about each one individually.
Permalink
yoshhash Posted 12:26 pm
25 Jun 2008
While you are probably correct, there is an undeniably powerful influence when enough people write. So write.
But while you are at it, write to someone who's job it is to care:
John Baird, the environment minister-
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[24]='\"';l[25]=' 97';l[26]=' 99';l[27]=' 46';l[28]=' 99';l[29]=' 103';l[30]=' 46';l[31]=' 99';l[32]=' 101';l[33]=' 64';l[34]=' 100';l[35]=' 114';l[36]=' 105';l[37]=' 97';l[38]=' 66';l[39]=' 46';l[40]=' 110';l[41]=' 104';l[42]=' 111';l[43]=' 74';l[44]=':';l[45]='o';l[46]='t';l[47]='l';l[48]='i';l[49]='a';l[50]='m';l[51]='\"';l[52]='=';l[53]='f';l[54]='e';l[55]='r';l[56]='h';l[57]='a ';l[58]='
Permalink