PDA

View Full Version : Bristol Bay and the Threat of Pebble Mine



lofter1
October 8th, 2011, 03:38 PM
A wrongheaded and potentially devastating mining plan for Alaska:

SAVE BRISTOL BAY (http://takeaction.savebristolbay.org/savebristolbay/home/)

If built, Pebble would produce up to 10 billion tons of toxic mine waste that would have to be treated for hundreds of years. It is critical that the EPA begin a process immediately to determine the impacts from the proposed mine so Bristol Bay and the people who depend on it for their livelihoods can be protected.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZy39OLcqxo


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5tuOGpQYhE

MidtownGuy
October 10th, 2011, 04:32 PM
This is horrible! Thanks for posting about it.:mad:

MidtownGuy
October 10th, 2011, 04:36 PM
1000 pounds of waste for every person on the planet!:eek:

lofter1
October 10th, 2011, 07:46 PM
It's amazing that a certain ex-Governor isn't using her considerable influence to protect the area that her daughter was named after.

So much for putting all that power to good use.

Ninjahedge
October 11th, 2011, 10:22 AM
I hope they do this a lot more in Alaska.

Maybe the only way to convince the rest of the country that these guys are full of... waste is to allow them to kill a portion of the states and let people see it.....

The problem is, making sure people see it and that the companies PR team is not allowed enough time to mollify or divert blame.

MidtownGuy
October 12th, 2011, 03:17 PM
That's exactly what would happen. Being way up there in Alaska, the reality would be even harder to convey.

There are already huge areas of the States completely destroyed by mining activities, such as the horrible mountaintop removal that has been done in Appalachia...and not nearly enough people are worried about it, or even comprehend the scale of the destruction.

lofter1
October 12th, 2011, 04:18 PM
Once they build the dam and start pumping in the poison the battle is lost. No way that construction will keep stuff in place forever.

ZippyTheChimp
October 12th, 2011, 06:44 PM
I hope they do this a lot more in Alaska.

Maybe the only way to convince the rest of the country that these guys are full of... waste is to allow them to kill a portion of the states and let people see it.....

The problem is, making sure people see it and that the companies PR team is not allowed enough time to mollify or divert blame.Unfortunately, it would have little impact. Alaska is one of least populated places on earth. The scale of of its wilderness is hard to grasp.

Ninjahedge
October 13th, 2011, 08:37 AM
Odd we spend so much cash on a state that matters so little.....

ZippyTheChimp
October 13th, 2011, 08:41 AM
^
?

Ninjahedge
October 13th, 2011, 08:55 AM
Cash -> Alaska (Bridge to nowhere, tax dollars spent per capita)

Poison + Alaska = Does not matter.

ZippyTheChimp
October 13th, 2011, 10:31 AM
Alaska is a big energy producing state.

About 70% of the land is federally owned.

Ninjahedge
October 13th, 2011, 10:58 AM
*sigh* (is that copyrighted?)

Per capita Alaska receives the largest (or close to it) amount of federal aid. It was one of the sticking points in the last election. The reason being, why would a candidate run on "we don't need no steenking funds" be saying so when her own state was a primary recipient?

So my point is this:

The last few posts have alluded to Alaska being sparsely populated and a state that few people would ever give any attention to due to its location and its dirth of occupants.

So, as a counterpoint to that, I found ironic that a state that matters so little in the eyes of America would have so much federal funding pumped into it. This was not a refutal of the original point. I think that Alaska is 100 miles north of Bumblef--k Township, but at the same time it is just odd that such divergent trains of reasoning can be applied to the same place.

So important that we spend $$ on it, federally owned or not, but not important enough to take care of?